Feedback from K5 v Akfinans bank Hearing 26/5/2011

Today’s hearing was scheduled to begin at 2.00 pm but started at about 2.40 pm. It is only fair to point out that the Advocates did spend some time in Chambers with Judge Talat Usar which probably accounts for the late start.

Richard Barclay, son of owner Christine Arline Barclay, was sworn in to give evidence on behalf of all the Petitioners from Kulaksiz 5 and has the necessary Power of Attorney to do so from each Petitioner. That would be each Petitioner with the exception of me. He did have my Power of Attorney too but for whatever reason, and this is where I suffer from not speaking Turkish, mine was singled out and handed back to our Advocate Boysan Boyra.

The preliminary questioning of Richard by our Advocate seemed to be confirming that we all had the necessary Contracts; Permissions to Purchase had registered our Contracts. There was rehash of the date of the larger mortgage and the amount; and also a general confirmation of all that we already know. It was reconfirmed that at the time of the mortgage the residents had paid a total of £568,000 out of a final total paid of £760,000. That, in the opinion of the witness, pointed to a fraud having taken place involving number 1 Defendant, Akfinans Bank Limited,  number 2 Defendant Yuksel Yilmaz (landowner) and number 3 Defendant, Kulaksiz Construction Limited. It was confirmed that all the Petitioners have receipts for payments made and in some cases letters from Kulaksiz Construction Limited.

There seemed to be an attempt to establish that, contrary to our claim that the villas had been built prior to the mortgage, they had not. A letter and photos from an Estate Agent acting for one of the purchasing couples was produced to support our claim that in fact the villas had been built prior to the mortgage. Much was made of the fact that at the time of the mortgage the land registry was showing the security appeared to be land only and that in fact the villas did not appear on the records of the Kocans in question until 2010. Our Advocate was establishing the fact that until we registered our Contract in 2008 we were totally unaware of the mortgages.

The questioning of the witness by our Advocate was peppered with many interruptions by Akan Kursat, Advocate acting for Akfinans Bank Limited. Whilst there was an interpreter present for the questions and answers, the interruptions were not translated. Our Advocate, in his questioning of Richard Barclay, basically covered the fact that mortgages were taken out without our knowledge or consent. That we were not party to the Hearing when Akfinans Bank Limited were awarded a Repossession Order on our properties and although by then the Bank knew of our existence, they did not pass this information on to the Judge in this case and so the Judge made the Order totally unaware of our interest in this land, which had all along had our properties on it. Richard maintained that had we known about the mortgage at the outset we would have asked for it to be only on the 3/13th owned by the landowner.

In his cross examination of Richard, Akan Kursat, who had gone to such pains to have my Power of Attorney removed from evidence, then proceeded to question him on my Contract (Pauline Ann Read), rather odd because in my opinion he had removed the right to do this by getting my Power of Attorney removed. I think, although I cannot be sure, Kursat was trying to prove that my villa could not have been built because I had only signed the Contract on the 14th September 2005. He then got Richard to look at my payment schedule within the Contract and again I am guessing, he was trying to demonstrate that by it, the villa could not have been built before the mortgage taken on 11th November 2005. Unfortunately for Kursat, what he did not know was that when I viewed the villa, it was virtually complete. Abdurrahman Guney had intended it for himself and it was only the fact that his wife wanted to live on the other side of Girne, that stopped it happening.

If he had referred Richard to the completion date within the Contract, he would have seen that there was a hand over date put in of the 31st December 2005, obviously Kursat never had the old ‘never assume’ lesson rammed home because if you do, it makes an ass(of)u(and)me.

I attach some photos of my villa which are camera dated 15.9.05 and shows my villa virtually complete on that date with For Sale white washed on the wall. If a valuer/surveyor had been sent to check the provenance of the proposed security, he would have seen this and other villas more advanced in their build and some totally complete.

Richard also had the opportunity to nail the myth about Akfinans having to pay a lot of money for our villas at the auction on the 6th June 2010. As both buyer and seller, the Bank would have written out a cheque to the Tapu who in turn after deducting any expenses would have paid the residue (the bulk of the amount) right back to Akfinans Bank. So in essence, Akfinans Bank Limited paid the original loans plus some expenses, probably not more than £45,000 and in return acquired 10 bungalow type villas and 3 houses i.e. less than £3,500 per property.

Much was made of the fact that no one would be made homeless if they repossess the villas. Strangely again I was referred to and the fact that I had somewhere else to live. Richard was asked if I had bought or rented and where I lived, he honestly answered, he did not know.

How is that relevant, is he saying it is permissible to take someone’s villa if they have somewhere else to live? When has the affluence of a victim made them less of a victim?

In summary, today’s hearing was going over facts I have made you aware of time and time again.

There was a break called between 4.30 and 4.45 pm but in fact, the break turned into an adjournment. After much waiting around we were given a new date for the continuance of the Hearing; Monday 6th June 2011 at 10.30 am. The first anniversary of the Auction and the date we had planned the 2 minutes silence.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Comments are closed.