New Evidence in Kulaksiz 5 v Akfinans Bank Case | Bank Valuation Report

WITHOUT PREJUDICE Kulaksiz 5 are fighting for homes and indeed I do not think it would be too strong to say they are fighting for their very lives here in North Cyprus. It is a fight they did not choose, a fight that was foist upon them by the cruel and some may think criminally fraudulent way the Bank have chosen to treat them.

In the court case lost by the Kulaksiz 5 on 26th August 2011, Abdurrahman Guney allegedly gave evidence to the effect that the Bank not only knew that there were properties on the land that just appeared as TARLA (land) on the mortgage loan document, but they had also inspected the copy of contracts held by Abdurrahman Guney in his position as Director of Kulaksiz Construction Limited. Allegedly, evidence has come to light of the identity of the valuer who did indeed conduct the survey at the time of the loan. Reports are coming in that the valuer is now suffering from an attack of conscience over the whole fiasco. It is believed that a member of Kulaksiz 5 is in possession of a copy of that Valuation Report.

Now let us look at the situation from the standpoint of the Kulaksiz 5. What did they do wrong? Allegedly they were all kept totally unaware of the mortgages until early 2008. It came to light apparently when the purchasers were registering their Contracts of Sale. The purchasers, upon learning of the mortgages firstly tried negotiation, I am told one purchaser even offered to buy the villa owned by the landowner, but her offer was not even considered. Only when the negotiating process was exhausted did the Kulaksiz 5 embark on legal action. The majority consulted with one Advocate and one member went the Breach of Contract route. Allegedly one member of Kulaksiz mounted two other cases against the Bank but was forced to withdraw the first because a judge at the High Court said it would fail. The second was an Appeal against the Repossession Order which initially she was told was thrown out with the excuse ‘she did not need two remedies for the same problem.’ Later she was allegedly blackmailed into withdrawing it by the threat that if she did not she would have to pay £1,000 costs and the case would be thrown out anyway. She did withdraw the case but added the words ‘under duress’ to her email reply to her Advocate.

A solution should be found. The ECHR case should be the last resort. Why then does the Bank seem hell-bent on taking this fight to the wire? Because they are right? Well you be the judge of that. Perhaps it is because they know they are wrong and to admit it would be end of them, you also be the judge of that?

Power to the people

Citizen Smith

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Comments are closed.