Kulaksiz 5 v Akfinans Bank | When Winning Can Be Losing


When Pauline Read won the Breach of Contract case against Kulaksiz Construction Limited, she foolishly thought that the auctions would go ahead and her money would be returned to her.  How stupid and naive can one almost intelligent human be. Nothing is straight forward here and nothing ever goes smoothly. It seems written into the system, ‘let us make things just as difficult as we possibly can’ and if there is one thing that they are good at, it is this.

This morning Pauline Read has been to court again, this time to attempt to renew her memorandum. Yes, a memorandum is not forever, well nothing ever is in north Cyprus.  She won the memorandum on the 6th November 2009. The paperwork came out of the system on the 17th November 2009.  The memorandum initially has a shelf life of two years which means one month before the 17th November of the second year, a further renewal has to be applied for and obtained, this last for just one year.

If in the interim period, like Pauline Read, you have been ‘sacked ‘ by your Advocate then you could, also like Pauline Read, find yourself up against it. Today she went to the court and lodged her intention to apply for the renewal and was given a date to appear in court to actually verbally apply for it from a Judge. She will be doing that very thing on the 12th October, Friday of the this week. If successful, this means the memorandum will being going into its fourth year.

Now can someone see how unfair all this is to the victim? She spent 13 months in the court system just to obtain the memorandum, now if she takes her eye off the ball, the memorandum could expire. Why you might ask is she having to wait so long to have the memorandum acted upon. Consider the Bank, they obtained their memorandum on the 20th November 2008 and it was actioned by the 6th June 2010 in a way none of us will ever forget… the Auction of the Kulaksiz 5’s homes. So why is Pauline having to wait so long? Answers on a post card by Friday, the prize is a trip to the court with Pauline.

Let us also not forget the other two cases Pauline Read mounted against the bank. The first for undue diligence which was thrown out. The second was within the six months that a challenge could be made on the Court Order given to ***DELETED*** Bank on the 20th November 2008.

Read the story below and ask yourself, was this case ever thrown out or was Pauline Read sold out? Ask yourself also, why when Pauline Read’s Advocate mounted three separate cases against the bank did she not bring Mortgage Law 11/78 section 21 into play?

Friday, January 29, 2010

When the TRNC High Court threw out my case against Akfinans Bank, because I had won the case against my builder, I thought that was the end of the matter. You can imagine my surprise when at the end of last week I received an e mail from my Advocate which read:


‘In relation to the recent High Court Case, the defendant’s lawyer has submitted the invoice for costs in the amount £1000. We will need to make this payment to *********************** urgently. I would be grateful if you could bring this money to the office on Monday so that we can make this payment.’

Not unnaturally I queried this and was informed in writing that the High Court had ordered that I pay the defendant’s Advocate’s legal costs. I was also told that the amount was not stipulated and that if I objected the Court Registrar would calculate the amount based on court guidelines.

My Advocate checked the guidelines and felt the costs would be around 3400TL and since Akfinans Bank Limited Advocate was asking for less than this, it would not be in my best interest to dispute this. I realised that I had no choice but to pay and so emailed back to say that I would pay this amount but that when I brought the money to the office I would expect to receive a copy of the invoice and court order before parting with my money.

I went in on Monday with the money but was informed that Akfinans Bank’s Advocate had not supplied a fatura and therefore they would not take the money from me. I most certainly would not have parted with it unless I saw and obtained a copy of the Court Order. I was told I would be phoned when they had the required paperwork.

On Tuesday morning I received a phone call from my Advocate’s office telling me that my Advocate had been talking with someone in Lefkoşa at the court and that if I withdrew the case then I would not have to pay the £1000 costs. If I did not withdraw the case, the High Court would throw it out and I would have to pay the £1000 costs. Now, I thought they had already thrown it out but as it looked like I had no choice I decided to withdraw the case but my words were I WITHDRAW THE APPEAL UNDER DURESS.

What is worrying is that on the 11th January 2010 the TAPU VE KADASTRO DAIRESI posted a notice on the Koop and the Coffee Shop in our village regarding our properties in mortgage to Akfinans Bank Ltd. I am told this is the first step in the process that leads to an auction – 13 properties are involved, 10 of which have British Purchasers, 2 are occupied by the families of the landowner who took out the mortgage and 1 is empty. The site has been abandoned by the builder, Kulaksiz Construction Limited, there are no roads, no street lights and we are still on builder’s electric four years after the first purchaser moved in. The building is of such poor quality that I will be surprised if any are still standing ten years from now.

What this space.

Power to the people

Citizen Smith

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Comments are closed.