North Cyprus Property | Is Change Only Skin Deep?

Without Prejudice

North Cyprus Property | Is Change Only Skin Deep?

“North Cyprus Property | In My Opinion: DELETED Bank’s lending policy was “grossly negligent”
Tuesday, December 20, 2011

North Cyprus Property: What many of you many not know is that in my other life I was Building Society Manager. In fact I did work for two separate Building Societies, one a major player, who was absorbed into the second largest one and now are part of Santander Bank; the second was a much smaller one. I did process mortgage applications for both but because the second was much smaller, I processed Commercial Mortgage applications too.

Now you could say, how on earth did she get caught in the mortgage trap with ‘Deleted’ Bank Limited? Well that is a very good question, but of course since I paid cash for my villa, why would I even suspect that a mortgage was being negotiated behind my back. I think you will find that is exactly the same situation for all the 1400 plus in the potential AUCTION queue.

I have a detailed knowledge of the balances and checks required when assessing the suitability of an applicant applying for mortgage facilities. Now it appears that the UK are tightening up on the procedure and are even doing what they call a ‘stress test’. This is looking to see what future potential interest rate increases will do to the applicant’s ability to repay and how it will affect their budget. In my opinion this is a real step in the right direction, but no more than you would expect in a ‘caring’ society (pun totally intended).

Now let us look at the reality in which we live. Deleted Bank Limited advanced one mortgage to Messrs Guney and Yilmaz. No problem with that if they had carried out even the most perfunctory checks on their applicants. For instance, did they look at the accounts for the building company Guney was a Director of, i.e. Kulaksiz Construction Limited? Did they check whether there were any other Bank loans on any other property owned by Kulaksiz Construction Limited and how they were conducting their repayments on those loans? Now I do happen to know, as fact, that at one point Kulaksiz Construction Limited had a loan with Universal Bank on a development in Arapkoy. What I do not know is whether it was taken out before or after the Deleted Bank loan. You can see where I am going with this. One or the other of these two Banks did not know about each other’s loan, or just did not care since they were holding the Kocans on hapless victims’ properties. They knew they were in a ‘win-win’ situation. Clearly the true owners of those properties were kept in the dark by both the borrowers and the lenders.

Of course the next and obvious check would be to look at the regular incomes of both applicants. In the case of Guney, his remuneration as Director of Kulaksiz. They would need to look at the company’s accounts to see it could afford that income. Then they would have needed to check with Pegasus Airlines to see if Yilmaz’s income was sufficient to cover the loan, taking into account he had a wife and child he was supporting in Mersin in Turkey.

Did any of these checks happen? Well I will leave you to think what you will on that score. Now here comes the killer, 250% interest! By agreeing to this, both of the applicants must have taken leave of their senses, OR maybe, as they were allegedly dealing with Mr. Yilmaz’s best friend the Manager of Girne Branch of Deleted Bank they knew exactly what they were doing.

Now I will go back to why I mentioned that Deleted Bank advanced not one, but two mortgages. Having given one mortgage to the applicants in March 2005, and not having received any repayment on that mortgage, Deleted Bank went on to advance a further amount to the borrowers in November 2005, some 8 months after. In the UK, if you miss one month’s payment you get a very stern letter. If you miss 3 months you are threatened with legal proceedings. By the end of 6 months you are well into the legal system that is a precursor to repossession. Yet here we have two borrowers, who knowingly and with the alleged collusion of the Bank, never paid a kurus of their agreed repayment schedule, and yet were given further money even whilst in default on their first mortgage.

In my opinion, Deleted Bank were not only grossly negligent in advancing money to such bad risks, they compounded it by advancing further money to them at an interest rate guaranteed not to be affordable and guaranteed to make the Mafia blush.

Was this a scam? I will leave you to make up your mind on that one too.

Never give in never give up”

This was published exactly one year ago. So what has changed? The existence of a Survey report commissioned by the Deleted Bank has surfaced, commissioned in March 2005 well before the giving of the second mortgage, showing properties on the land, yet the mortgage document submitted with the mortgage details to the Tapu in November 2005 clearly says it is just TARLA (land) that the mortgage is on. One has to ask, is this a deliberate attempt to misinform the Tapu or just a ‘mistake’? Did the Bank know how important this misinformation was, how it was in fact potentially a criminal offence? Does the old adage “ignorance of the law is no excuse apply?

MORTGAGE LAW 11/78 section 21 which could be said to be ‘hidden in plain view’ since it has been on the statute books since 1978 has also come into play in a very big way and could have a significant affect on all cases of a similar nature. Yet we are asked to believe that none of the advocates who initially acted for the purchasers knew of it, a big ASK in my opinion.

We also now know that the much reviled idea that advocates have NO DUTY OF CARE, has been blown out of the water since if you can sue the for negligence and since the the definition of negligence is ‘not giving proper care’, the advocates involved are guilty of semantics.

We may not have achieved a great step forward legally, but we have made several steps forward in the understanding of just what and who we are dealing with. So 2012 may have been the year the ‘blinkers’ have been well and truly removed from the victims eyes, blinkers put on their eyes by those who should have been protecting their interest. Shame on you. You can only milk the same cow for so long. The cash cows are wising up.

Never give in never give up.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Comments are closed.