Kulaksiz 5 victims may each have to pay 2000TL costs to Akfinans Bank – legal fund seriously depleted

Yesterday I finally managed to obtain the full 18 pages of the decision of the Judge Talat Usar at the court hearing on 26th August 2011. I have also been fortunate enough to have a friend give me a summary of this decision in English.

In fairness to our Advocate Boysan Boyra and my fellow Petitioners I only intend to give details of this where it concerns me.

You will remember I had been very much mentioned in the Hearings with Richard Barclay being asked detailed questions about my Contract of Sale. This in itself was extremely strange since Akan Kurşat had been at pains to have my Power of Attorney, to give Richard Barclay my permission to answer on my behalf, removed from the case. Indeed it was not entered into evidence as far as I am aware. When I questioned him about this, Mr Boyra said they had enough Powers of Attorney. I must admit I find it strange they picked on the one villa Contract they already had criminally repossessed.

Naturally Richard knew very little about my Contract. Why would he?  In consequence, if I had been questioned about my own Contract I could have easily countered the point Kurşat appeared to be trying to make. I had only signed it on 14th September 2005 so how could my villa have been visible in November 2005, in fact the answer was simple, when I signed the Contract the villa was externally finished with a roof and had FOR SALE white washed on the external wall..

All this, is as they say, is now history. The decision went against us and according to the Judge it will not irreversibly harm us if we are evicted. Let me tell the Judge, that manner in which my villa was criminally repossessed, has harmed me greatly and I now need chemical help just to sleep.

Now, the decision as it affects me:

1.  The defendants asked that plaintiff number 12 be struck out because she had already sued and was awarded compensation, so there is no more direct link to the houses in question.  The Judge refused to do so at this stage since a detailed claim has not been submitted yet

2.  The Judge awarded 2000TL in favour of the defendants (Akfinans) plurally and singularly, i.e. Akfinans can take out a writ against any plaintiff/plaintiffs for 2000TL for costs.

Of course item 1 does not take into account an award is useless unless it is paid.  Hands up all those who think that will happen any day soon.

Item 2 is the first time I have been aware that costs have been awarded against us and the manner of it is in my opinion outrageous.

It also begs the question, are there any more costs that have been awarded against Kulaksiz 5 in previous cases?

It is not my intention to give ammunition to Akfinans Bank Limited and clearly they already have access to everything written here. It would seem that Kulaksiz 5 are not only fighting the Bank but also the nepotism and cronyism that allegedly exists here. I love the TRNC but I despair for her future.

 

Never give in – never give up.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Comments are closed.