North Cyprus Property | Beware of Telling the Truth


In the absence of Hak, Pauline’s Advocate, his colleague represented her in the 5th Libel Writ case in court in Girne yesterday. The case was adjourned because the Bank had not submitted details of the case against her. She supposes that they had not submitted details of the case against any of the respondents in this case. This is not unusual and Hak had fully expected that, so his inability to be there due to his wife’s illness made no difference. The new date given was the 19th February 2013. If Hak is still unable to attend, his colleague will attend and ask for another adjournment, that is if it is necessary and the Bank submit the details of the case against the 8 respondents.

Hak’s wife is now in a hospital in Istanbul where tests are being carried out before treatment can safely begin.

So February 2013 begins where January 2013 left off, Pauline Read already has two more dates for court appearances, court appearances on the 5th, 11th and 19th that she knows of at this stage. Then factor in the other 4 Libel writs being dealt with by an Advocate in Famagusta where she will not appear at the court until the the actual full hearing. You can see why her funds are rapidly diminishing. All because she bought a villa in north Cyprus, had it repossessed because of a mortgage she never took out by a Bank she had never heard of until this happened and she DARES shout ‘foul’ publicly.

I have scoured everything written in NCFP, I have watched the TV programme on Ada TV several times, I can find nothing written or spoken that is untrue.

We are told that north Cyprus law is based on British law. I can say that in the same set of circumstances in Britain, this would not have happened.

In Britain, no lending institution would give out money on security sold to a third party.

In Britain, no lending institution would be allowed to charge 250% per annum for a mortgage.

In Britain, no Judge would give repossession in such circumstances.

In Britain, no Judge would change the interest rate to 80% per quarter compound which is even greater than the original interest rate.

In Britain, no auction would be allowed in such circumstances.

In Britain, Advocates who allowed this to happen to their clients would be investigated by the Bar Association.

In Britain any Bank taking part in this transaction would be investigated.

This is not Britain, this is north Cyprus and they do have a law that if followed to the letter would have prohibited this transaction at the start in 2005.

Mortgage Law 11/78 section 21 makes it perfectly clear that you cannot knowingly submit a mortgage stating the security is TARLA (land) when you know there are properties already on that land. It is alleged the Bank did just that, they submitted a mortgage document to the Tapu (land registry) in November 2005 stating that the security was just land when they had in their possession a survey dated March 2005 clearly stating the land was built upon and the existence of properties on that land. They themselves had commissioned said survey.

I rest my case.

Power to the people

Citizen Smith

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Comments are closed.