I think the best solution is to obtain a discount on just the property based on: -
a) the weight of a number of investors together and
b) the threat of legal action based on their late delivery of the apartment which clearly is a breach of contract.
In this way we can hopefully avoid any expensive additional legal fees, and also take the final finish out of the developers hands into another company that should be able to come to the table with a clean slate and an eagerness to provide a good service.
This will also leave the developer to move on and get his house in order

Many people paid for the LCS and this payment should include for sorting out these fittings and ensuring that reasonable quality components are supplied and fitted at a good price. If you just handover the whole lot to the developer i-PA are not
really earning their £699. I could have done it myself for that price!

Has anyone actually checked the contract and see what the liquidated damages penalty comes to as a basis for our legal threat. Are there any other aspects that we can use to get the price reduced other than delays??

On reflection I have to agree with you, a price reduction would probably be the best alternative, if only for the reason that he hasn't delivered what was promised so far.
The major caveat with this choice is that he's not legally obliged to provide the discount, all he has failed to do is deliver on time.

If we go down the path of claiming penalties that could take months with expensive legal bills with no guarantee of payment either. Providing a price discount entails a certain amount of 'goodwill' and if he suspects he's not going to be awarded the final finish and fit out that could also provide grounds for his reluctance for a discount, however I'm very keen to finalize any associations with the developer on the grounds of general unreliability and unfulfilled promises of completion.

I'm presuming everyone received the further update from I-PA. I wasn't really sure what was being suggested as it was somewhat ambiguous. I called IPA for clarification but Sarah Jayne was not available and I didn't receive a call back.

Like yourself I just want this to be over with and finalized before another Transylvanian winter sets in and everyone has the perfect excuse fof further delays to full completion.

Any further investor thoughts would be welcome

Hi.
I received the confusing PS update and assume it was deliberately so.

In Jucu South, as with several other PS developments, I think that whatever the approach it is best managed outside of the public forum. PS have taken the money for the LCS service but failed to act in our best interests.
In these cases it is because they have decided to exit (never having really entered) the local market. Any muppet with access to google can find a "strategic partner" and dump the work on them - as the PS appointed local agents, negotiators and lawyers complain to me that PS have done.

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.

The time I have taken in administering my PS CEE investments is far beyond that I have spent in managing investments in other much more 'difficult' countries, in part due to the 'non value adding' intermediary role play by PS.
I believe this closed forum could provide PS with a positive role in the markets they don’t plan to be in in the future.

My experience of the posts on this forum is that the knowledge of investors in terms of finance, law, property and the local markets is much greater than that of PS employees. This is not surprising as most investors have made their own money and PS is a very small company.

Perhaps I am the only one thinking this?
David

I became very disillusioned and disappointed with the service I-PA provided some time ago and look forward to the time when our association finally comes to an end. It seems that instead of providing existing clients with practical advice we are instead viewed as just a further income generating machine for their business. We paid expensive up front fees and very expensive LCS fees for which I feel personally I have received very poor value for money. Unfortunately my 'naivety' has cost me dearly. Fortunately, I have invested with more professional and efficient companies, although not involved in CEE countries, which goes some way to balance out the mistake of investing with PS.

With a previous PS investment (Gods knows how) but investors did manage to make contact with no help from PS of course and became a formidable group without which it would have been impossible to make collective decisions re. buildings insurance and maintenance contracts. PS provided no support at all and we all felt very much left in the lurch at completion.

I think it is about time that PS eased their intransigence re. contact. These are tough times for everyone and much could be gained by allowing contact between investors of each complex, through the process by which you suggest, perhaps even making a charge for the service. It sends a definite signal that PS seem threatened by allowing contact, that is my perception. Much could be gained by both PS/IPA and investors alike.

On the subject of Jucu, I don't know what I-PA's intentions are...... they seem in favour of price negotation which of course is a much more profitable avenue for them rather than a reduction in the white finish. At this stage I just want a collective decision made and a finished apartment ...oh and some clarfication of the last alert by IPA.

IPA are less than positive about the cost and quality of the finish being offered at present, and on reflection, it would seem like a good idea to get a more efficient and reliable supplier for the finish, as others have suggested. If the final finish is overpriced then any discount is superficial anyway.

I've emailed Sarah-Jane saying that I would be interested in their proposal of having legal amendments to the contract, after negotiations, done by a cheaper lawyer/solicitor, provided the work is suficiently robust.

I understand from the PS alert that they are pursuing a discount to the property and seeking alternative suppliers for the final finsh - unsure what clarifiaction is needed as requested by others?

My concern is whether the existing lawyer will accept an amendment from another lawyer? IP-A are requesting us to write to Jinga (not sure what they want us to say which is why I requested clarification). I also want some realistic costings re. proposed legal fees with new lawyer. I don't want to be in the position of securing a discount which is then spent on further high legal costs and fees and percentages to IP-A and the negotiator.

I agree with the need for some definite costs associated with IPA's proposal and I am assuming (maybe wrongly so?) that the proposed action has been cleared with Jinga, hence IPA have been instructed that a letter is needed from each of us. As to the content of this letter, I am expecting (once again, maybe wrongly so?) a template from IPA that would be acceptable to Jinga.

I've requested a template I-PA alongwith clarification that the action is acceptable to JBA and a realistic estimate of costs. I would like to see a straight charge for legal fees so we all know exactly where we stand at the outset. Finally confirmation that the developer is in a financial position to agree to a discount.

It's a great pity that no contact is allowed between fellow investors as I'm sure we could all come to a collective decision way before I-PA establishes their intended course of action and costs.

PalmTreeP,

I have found the dealings I have had with iPA a complete joke... I original stated that I wanted LCS - but backed following no return calls, misleading completion dates (which led me to unnecessary mortgage costs) and no full iPA page. After 5 months of not getting a full iPA page and despite chasing this up with Sarah-Jane (a futile exercise) I decided to back out and not pay for an 'undelivered service'. Hilariously enough I did finally get two communications from iPA 3 months later, not intended to address my questions nor an apology for unanswered e-mails but to chase me again for the LCS invoice. I too look forward to the day when I cut my ties with Visium. This is not where I want to be but unfortunately kept the faith with PS/i-PA too long as they made such a good initial impression. I have now had to un-bury my head from the sand. It has been a sobering (and v expensive) lesson with the personal investment that has gone into this.

Anyway back to this 'investment'... I have received a mail today which claims no agreements have been made with iPA and advises me that iPA's considerations for re-negotiation as 'intolerable' and 'misleading'. For those who have not received this I have copied this in verbatim from J&A.


We have been made aware by several Jucu South investors about the communication you recently received from i-PA.

We refer hereby to that part of i-PA communication that mentions J&A services. We would like to clearly underline the following:

J&A has no involvement with the renegotiation scheme that i-PA proposed
J&A has achieved and will achieve direct communication with all clients regarding legal matters related to this investment; we have not required nor will we require i-PA to mediate our communication with you
J&A only acts upon the instructions received from you directly
Topics related to our services will be exclusively and directly discussed with our clients, due to our confidentiality clause inserted into our Client Agreement
We find i-PA considerations intolerable and we preserve our rights to challenge their misleading statements


As for the questions that investors have recently addressed with regard to Jucu investment, please take into consideration the followings:



As mentioned in our previous communications, the developer is in default. For that reason he owes you penalties for late completion.

The developer should have achieved his obligations by 15.10.2008. The penalties for the developer to pay are of 0.05% of the entire value of the Estate for each overdue day that follows the agreed term of completion. The pre-agreement states that penalties shall be deducted (retained) from the rest of the price.



The pre-agreement offers you three options in case of developer’s fault to properly achieve his obligations. Please check our previous e-mails on this topic, dated February 2009.



If willing to continue with this transaction you are entitled to receive penalties for late completion. It is possible for the developer not to agree to pay the entire value of the penalties, as it is a considerable one. If the developer is unwilling to cooperate, you are also entitled to address a claim in court. The scope is to receive a court decision to attest the transfer of the ownership title over the apartment in your name and to reconfirm the developer’s obligation to pay you penalties for delayed completion.

The developer’s choices are to either cooperate from the start by accepting a certain value of the penalties or to face a court decision and extra expenditures (litigation expenses).

We did not receive any recent communication from the developer with regard to an envisaged reception term. You will be notified in case the current status changes.

For further information on the foregoing or other related matters, please do not hesitate to contact us.


Ideally it makes sense to come to an agreement out of court and not go through the penalty route and I think that this is the intention of iPA. I may be naive here but following an agreement of the reduction in price the legal element would I would have thought would involve re-writing of the contracts. As iPA now do not seem to be involved in dealing with iPA on this - is it a case of 2-5 hours of J&A costs? I probably need to ask this question directly to J&A? Can we not get together as a group of investors and just get J&A to ask for a broad 10-15% reduction in price. This is currently in line with associated penalties (stated above).

STC

Hi STC

I've previously made my feelings very clear re. the Visium Group. It's been a painful l'investment' journey in many ways and it's not over yet.

Onto Jucu, I have written directly to them asking them to provide contact details to other investors if requested. Perhaps we can all do the same.

I am not surprised by the reaction of JBA. It shows again how very little knowledge I-PA has of legal matters.

I am in favour of your suggestion and will write to JBA directly seeing as though there seems very little sensible proposals forthcoming from I-PA. I have a very simple hotmail address.

Pauline Hayes