Kulaksiz 5 remedy “where the bank wins and the buyers don’t lose”

winners & lo(o)sersI sometimes wonder where some of the facts I see quoted regarding Kulaksiz 5 come from; from Cyprus Today.

‘We still maintain the view that there is a remedy where the bank wins and the buyers don’t lose. We have heard that the four empty houses (at the Karsiyaka site) have been valued at £110,000 each.’ I am assuming this statement is attributed to Marion Stokes, although in fairness, it could be some other person.

Well lets look at that statement, Initially, there was just one empty house, i.e. the one belonging to the Landowner. Then another was almost empty but locked and secured; my house and it was forcibly taken by Akfinans Bank. Then Eva McCluskey’s house was forcibly repossessed by the Bank. Now forgive me but by my reckoning that is only three houses. Does whoever made that statement think that both Eva and I should sacrifice our investments for the greater good? I do not feel inclined to and I am certain neither does Eva.

Ha ha, I can hear you saying, Pauline Read has Court Memorandums and if the assets covered by these Memorandums are sold then she will get something. Well yes, but the operative word is IF, and I do not have a great deal of confidence in an IF. So is the plan to sell these mythical four houses and the Bank will be given the proceeds then the rest of K5 get to keep their properties. Well in theory it might work for those who will keep their properties, it certainly does not work for me and I do not think it will work for Eva McCluskey. By my reckoning it means the Bank does not loose, some of K5 do not loose, but Pauline Read and Eva McCluskey loose everything. I think my reaction to that is – back to the drawing board.

I am a fully fee paying member of the Kulaksiz 5 group who employ Advocate Boysan Boyra. I expect my interest to be as equally protected as the other members of Kulaksiz . I was assured that until my Court Award is paid I am as entitled, as any other owner on Kulaksiz 5, to keep my villa, that the only thing that could change that would be a Court order to evict following a legal hearing. This has not happened.

It seems that International law would not allow the actions taken by Akfinans Bank Limited on 30th July 2010 and I personally am not prepared to be side stepped on this issue, and make the situation easier, simply because local law might disagree. I am sure Eva McCluskey feels the same way. Law is not ‘pick ‘n mix’, we’ll use local law for this and International law for that. It does not work that way.

Now let us look at the two houses occupied by the family members of the landowner Yuksel Yilmaz. They seem very secure, so much so that Ertul Kader and Osman Karaman (brother in law to Yuksel Yilmaz) were observed having a cosy ‘tete a tete’ on Sunday afternoon just as Ipek and I were off to the Police Station. Remember, their homes are on the same Kocans as the ex-pats, so they also form part of the security offered by Yuksel Yilmaz (admitted best friend of Ertul Kader) to the Bank as security for the mortgage. Why then are they not worried, why then are they on such friendly terms with the family? I think we all know the answer. They are as guilty as the Bank in my opinion.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Comments are closed.