uk.politics.philosophy
Groups Alerts
Create a group...
Recently Visited Groups | Help | Sign in
uk.politics.philosophy
Discussions
+ new post
About this group
Subscribe to this group
This is a Usenet group - learn more
Sponsored links
A Level Philosophy
Oxford College Home Study Unlimited
Support From Specialist Tutors!
www.OxfordCollege.ac/Philosophy
Knowledge Democracy
Intern.Conf. Science-Politics-Media
25-27Aug'09 Leiden NL REGISTER NOW!
www.knowledgedemocracy.nl
Penny Auction
Top brands for a fraction
of their real price
www.bidmaster24.co.uk
Coning the public with public money: Amicus Horizon Group Options
There are currently too many topics in this group that display first. To make this topic appear first, remove this option from another topic.
There was an error processing your request. Please try again.
Standard view View as tree
Proportional text Fixed text
1 message - Collapse all - Translate all to Translated (View all originals)
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
Cancel
Send Discard
From:
To:
Cc:
Followup To:
Add Cc | Add Followup-to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation: For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon.
Send Discard
David Foot View profile
More options Mar 5, 6:23 pm
Newsgroups: uk.politics.philosophy
From: "David Foot" <davidaf...@yahoo.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2009 23:23:11 -0000
Local: Thurs, Mar 5 2009 6:23 pm
Subject: Coning the public with public money: Amicus Horizon Group
Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
The HOUSING CORPORATION is a very powerful quango that allows some memebers
with not the best reputation to operate in a very dubious way, this was the
case of Crystal Palace Housing Association in 1991 which went about
mis-representing leases to the public in the media and by any means it saw
fit.
The Housing corporation member I am referring to has many names and has new
name now: Crystal Palace Housing Association, South London Family Housing
Association, SLFHA Ltd, Horizon Housing Group and now has started calling
itself AmicusHorizon Group.
*THIS WAS AN OPERATION OF ABOUT 70 to 80 PROPERTIES: 4 to 5 Million Pounds
of 1991 money! And values were falling, there was a crisis.
*The leases were misrepresented at the time of sale targetting people
without experience, while the "professionals" who drafted the leases and
sales contract appear to have catered for this process of supplying people
without experience illegal information behind their legal advisors back,
because the lease / sales contract combine to disown anything guranteed
during the process of sale, leaving the public exposed to that dishonesty:
"Calling first time buyers" they said in the Evening Standard 31-07-91
and
"Absolutely no requirement to buy the remainder" they also assured us
and
"Does the rent ever go up?" they asked in their own leaflets
"Yes it goes up in line with inflation" they answered
And ten years later the dishonest sellers (CPHA now AmicusHorizon Group)
wrote the following words to us: (from their letter 16-03-99)
"As you are aware..." !! "In October 2000, the 2(b) applies... Obviously
this has some " CONSIDERABLE FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS" to all "LEASEHOLDERS
WHO DO NOT OWN 100%" !!
(the implications to which they referred: 40 % rent rise indexed year on
year 2 % ABOVE inflation and something more or less the same a few years
latter according to this lease described above as with ABSOLUTELY no
requirement to buy the remainder!)
So here is what they were advising us now:
"and I suggest that you may wish to consider staircasing in the percentage
you currently own." !!
The sales contract dis-owns any mis-representations the dishonest landlord
made to us, even publicly and in the press!. Was this premeditated? Did they
read the lease and the sales contract? What advice did their solicitors give
them? The Housing Corporation says this is not against their regulations!
All this I have documented.
So there you have the 4 million pound question, and which curiously is the
same one they have the courage to ask me: "and what did "THEIR" solicitor
tell "THEM"?"
And crucially: "Did "THEY" read the lease?" In the falling market with their
out-dated prices (as these were falling still further towards the end of
1991).. was this premeditated?
Was all this in deed a deliberate plan as it appears to be? I understand
that the then CPHA now AmicusHorizon Group actually was responsible for
chosing this type of lease! for this 4 million pound plus operation!
The Housing Corporation doesn't want to look in to this ! and it also told
me that I should have gone with a guy put by CPHA and who was peddling
pension endowment mortgages, possibly an ex employee of CPHA.. it was all
not very clear if he wanted to give legal or financial advice or both on
CPHA premises during their "Sales Seminar". They also say that my landlord
..didn't breach any Corporation procedural guidelines.. wow!.. what a
regulator! and what guidelines!
Should public organisations, landlords, lawyers, etc have freedom to operate
as other professions can't (and shouldn't) when they sell something to the
public who have less experience and technical knowledge?
Should public bodies be allowed to compete with the private sector in this
unfair way protected even from Parliament by a Quango?
So much for the integrity of operations with public funds through the
Housing Corporation.
Misrepresenting leases in the process of sale should be a crime just like
any other way of deceiving the public.
Even worse this is coning the public with public money. That is our taxes
being used without integrity through a Quango to deceive the public. This is
why the Regulator is not doing what it is supposed to. Is the new regulator
the Tenants Service Authority going to consider like the Housing Corporation
that mal-administration is one of its valid guidelines for the sector?
Thank you for your attention and if you would like copies of the
documentation supporting these claims or you think that you may be able to
recommend a solution please write to me at adrianf...@hotmail.com quoting
CPHA so that I know it is not junk mail.
Kind regards
David A. Foot
Reply to author Forward
Cancel
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
Send Discard
From:
To: "David Foot" <davidaf...@yahoo.co.uk>
Cc:
Followup To:
Add Cc | Add Followup-to | Edit Subject
Subject:
On Mar 5, 6:23 pm, "David Foot" <davidaf...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> The HOUSING CORPORATION is a very powerful quango that allows some memebers
> with not the best reputation to operate in a very dubious way, this was the
> case of Crystal Palace Housing Association in 1991 which went about
> mis-representing leases to the public in the media and by any means it saw
> fit.
>
> The Housing corporation member I am referring to has many names and has new
> name now: Crystal Palace Housing Association, South London Family Housing
> Association, SLFHA Ltd, Horizon Housing Group and now has started calling
> itself AmicusHorizon Group.
>
> *THIS WAS AN OPERATION OF ABOUT 70 to 80 PROPERTIES: 4 to 5 Million Pounds
> of 1991 money! And values were falling, there was a crisis.
>
> *The leases were misrepresented at the time of sale targetting people
> without experience, while the "professionals" who drafted the leases and
> sales contract appear to have catered for this process of supplying people
> without experience illegal information behind their legal advisors back,
> because the lease / sales contract combine to disown anything guranteed
> during the process of sale, leaving the public exposed to that dishonesty:
>
> "Calling first time buyers" they said in the Evening Standard 31-07-91
> and
> "Absolutely no requirement to buy the remainder" they also assured us
> and
> "Does the rent ever go up?" they asked in their own leaflets
> "Yes it goes up in line with inflation" they answered
>
> And ten years later the dishonest sellers (CPHA now AmicusHorizon Group)
> wrote the following words to us: (from their letter 16-03-99)
>
> "As you are aware..." !! "In October 2000, the 2(b) applies... Obviously
> this has some " CONSIDERABLE FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS" to all "LEASEHOLDERS
> WHO DO NOT OWN 100%" !!
>
> (the implications to which they referred: 40 % rent rise indexed year on
> year 2 % ABOVE inflation and something more or less the same a few years
> latter according to this lease described above as with ABSOLUTELY no
> requirement to buy the remainder!)
>
> So here is what they were advising us now:
>
> "and I suggest that you may wish to consider staircasing in the percentage
> you currently own." !!
>
> The sales contract dis-owns any mis-representations the dishonest landlord
> made to us, even publicly and in the press!. Was this premeditated? Did they
> read the lease and the sales contract? What advice did their solicitors give
> them? The Housing Corporation says this is not against their regulations!
>
> All this I have documented.
>
> So there you have the 4 million pound question, and which curiously is the
> same one they have the courage to ask me: "and what did "THEIR" solicitor
> tell "THEM"?"
>
> And crucially: "Did "THEY" read the lease?" In the falling market with their
> out-dated prices (as these were falling still further towards the end of
> 1991).. was this premeditated?
>
> Was all this in deed a deliberate plan as it appears to be? I understand
> that the then CPHA now AmicusHorizon Group actually was responsible for
> chosing this type of lease! for this 4 million pound plus operation!
>
> The Housing Corporation doesn't want to look in to this ! and it also told
> me that I should have gone with a guy put by CPHA and who was peddling
> pension endowment mortgages, possibly an ex employee of CPHA.. it was all
> not very clear if he wanted to give legal or financial advice or both on
> CPHA premises during their "Sales Seminar". They also say that my landlord
> ..didn't breach any Corporation procedural guidelines.. wow!.. what a
> regulator! and what guidelines!
>
> Should public organisations, landlords, lawyers, etc have freedom to operate
> as other professions can't (and shouldn't) when they sell something to the
> public who have less experience and technical knowledge?
>
> Should public bodies be allowed to compete with the private sector in this
> unfair way protected even from Parliament by a Quango?
>
> So much for the integrity of operations with public funds through the
> Housing Corporation.
> Misrepresenting leases in the process of sale should be a crime just like
> any other way of deceiving the public.
>
> Even worse this is coning the public with public money. That is our taxes
> being used without integrity through a Quango to deceive the public. This is
> why the Regulator is not doing what it is supposed to. Is the new regulator
> the Tenants Service Authority going to consider like the Housing Corporation
> that mal-administration is one of its valid guidelines for the sector?
>
> Thank you for your attention and if you would like copies of the
> documentation supporting these claims or you think that you may be able to
> recommend a solution please write to me at adrianf...@hotmail.com quoting
> CPHA so that I know it is not junk mail.
>
> Kind regards
> David A. Foot
©2009 Google
