What is 'exchange/esdege land - WHAT EXACTLY DOES IT MEAN

HildySmith


Joined: 02/07/2009
Posts: 1708

Message Posted:
22/10/2011 16:54

My house is on Esdege/exchange land. What exactly does that mean.

On my other posting someone has given a brief description - I would like to know more and wha the implicasions are. I was told that it is "safe and securew

Is it?

What are the implications of buying on esdege/exchange land.

yorgozlu



Joined: 16/06/2009
Posts: 4437

Message Posted:
22/10/2011 17:47

I'm sure this is not the actual meaning,but here is my view



Eşdeğer\exchange land is a land that still has original owners but cannot use due to no access,that has been given to turkish Cypriots(as far as Cyprus is concerned) as opposed to what they had left behind (in the southern part of our motherland) during conflict in 74.

Not only to cypriots but settlers,too.

they then made the f**k up of the century and issued so called 'deeds' for this immovables to individuals.

not only to cypriots but settlers,too.

Once the crossings started in 2004 and the talks started,they thought 'oh s**t.what are we gonna do if there is a settlement aggrement?Perhaps,it's best we flog'em to foreigners (brits).Because if there is to be a settlement,those that are sold to them will no longer be our problem since they should've known better not to buy in the first place.



in the next episode I'd mention the builders\constructors.

HildySmith


Joined: 02/07/2009
Posts: 1708

Message Posted:
22/10/2011 18:10

Thank you for that, I will look forward to the next episode.

Was this land 'given away' or did the people who now own it buy it (TC's I am referring to)

Someone said it was swopped with land in the south and is therefore owned by the people who had land in the south - is that correct.

My Advocate told me that it was 'safe and secure' to by exchange land - is that not so?

Deniz1


Joined: 28/07/2009
Posts: 3829

Message Posted:
22/10/2011 18:38

Why pick specifically on "Brits" They are not the only foreigners to buy here. Many many russians swedes and germans live here too.

BizziLizzi


Joined: 02/08/2011
Posts: 855

Message Posted:
22/10/2011 18:57

My understanding is that post l974 Turks who previously lived in the South were given land /houses in the North and Greeks living in the South were given land /houses in the North. Note particularly that this was done under the auspices of the United Nations. Of course humans being fallible it wasnt always quite fair sometimes the undeserving got better property out of the deal, and sometimes the reverse.



The exchange land is know as "TRNC Title" (as opposed to "Turkish Title" which was always owned by Turkish Cypriots) which means that in TRNC law it legaly belongs to those who were given it - and to anyone who bought it from those who were given it. Unfortunately the TRNC and its laws are not internationally recognised.



Common sense and common fairness would suggest that if a Greek Cypriot want to reclaim land he previously owned in the North he should hand over to the Turkish Cypriot or his successor in title (ie a subsequent purchaser)......................contd......

misunderstood


Joined: 08/04/2011
Posts: 1004

Message Posted:
22/10/2011 19:04

I think the person to ask for the absolutely correct answer to this question would be Ismet.



I believed it was land given to TC's who left land in the south, so no they did not pay for it but many handed over their deeds to the land in the south to the Govt. So the word Exhange land meant exactly that land given in exchange for land lost in the south. I am sure Ismet will give a better answer.

BizziLizzi


Joined: 02/08/2011
Posts: 855

Message Posted:
22/10/2011 19:10

,,.............he should return the property he got in the South by the exchange to the Turkish Cypriot or his successor in title, and of course vice versa. Unforunately common sense and fairness do not always prevail in politics.



So if the TRNC authorities keep their promises and stick by their guns, (oops didnt mean that literally!) TRNC title should be "safe" as long as there is partition or if the TRNC gets international recognition and independence. However if there is some form of reunification who knows what the RoC, the international community and particularly the European Union will do with"exchange" land.!!????!!!!



There is some evidence that some decent , ordinary, perfectly nice Greek Cypriots have settled happily in their new homes and no longer want to move. But unfortunately they may be put undder presssure from unscrupulous developers and lawyers and even their own Government - and who knows what bright ideas some idiots in the EU will come up with

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
22/10/2011 19:11

Exchange of property was NOT done 'under the auspices of the UN'.



Exhange deed in the north does NOT mean that the pre 74 GC owner agreed to an exchange, or their government in their place agreed to an exchange.



What the 'exchange' refers to is a TC who lost property in the south agreeing to exchange their rights to that property in the south with the TC adminstration post 74 in return for land that the TC adminstration took effective but not legal ownership of post 74, without the consent or agreement of the pre 74 orignal GC owner. The exchange was/is between a TC indivdual who lost property in the south and the TC adminstration post 74. It nothing to do with the pre 74 GC owner.



In the RoC post 74, GC who lost land in the north were given and still get various forms of assistance, public housing and other benefits but they were not, apprat from a few very small exceptions, given freehold title to equivalent property to that which they lost in 74.

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
22/10/2011 19:16

Exchange deed is considered 'safer' (not safe) than some other kinds of deeds on the basis that at least notionaly there is some balancing 'value' of property in the south against which it was exchanged, though exchanged without the consent of the pre 74 GC owners.



Some land that came under effective control of the TC adminstration post 74 was simply given to varous people or entities, without those people or entities themselves giving up any 'balancing' rights to property they lost in the south. Thus exchange can be considered 'safer' (though not safe) than this kind of property.



The 'exchange' system operated in the North post 74 was not 'one to one'. As a TC you did not say I sign over my rights to property in say paphos, to the TC adminstration and in return I get this property in the North that pre 74 was GC owned. It was done via a system of 'points'. You chose as a TC with property in the south to sign over your rights to that to TC adminstration and in return [cont]

BizziLizzi


Joined: 02/08/2011
Posts: 855

Message Posted:
22/10/2011 19:19

Moral: If you bought exchange land (I have btw) press hard for independence for the TRNC and/or if you are an EU citizen write to your national MP and EMP and explain in no uncertain terms if they do not ensure that the right of Turkish Cypriot and expatriates and those who have bought from them are not respected in any settlement their social services will be faced by an influx of homeless and destitute citizens and often taxpayers who have been cheated out of their homes - not by the Turkish Cypriots but by the International Community and (particularly in the case of the British) their own country

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
22/10/2011 19:20

you got assigned a certain amount of 'points'. You could then use these points to apply for freehold title (in the TRNC) to land controlled by the TC adminstration that prior to 74 was GC owned. Thus exchange title has a notial connection to some property in the south, previously TC owned pre 74 and then signed over to the TC adminstration, but it is not a simple 'one to one' relationship.



Points were also awarded to TC for reasons other than signing over rights to pre 74 property in the South. You could get points for exmaple as a wife who's husband was killed in the RoC pre 74 as a result of intercommunal clashes and post 74 use these to get a freehold (in the TRNC) property.

Stonehousepub


Joined: 21/05/2009
Posts: 755

Message Posted:
22/10/2011 19:21

Exchange title land is still legally owned by the GCs, TRNC deeds are not worth the paper they are written on.



No land has ever been exchanged with the GCs and I can assure you all that nobody has handed deeds to the goverment.



Exchange land is basically GC land, until any settlement (which will never happen) it will always legally be GC land...

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
22/10/2011 19:31

In summary



Post 74 the adminstration in the North gave pre 74 GC property it had gained effective control over to TC in the North. Most of this but not all was given to TC in 'exchange' for their rights to property they previoulsy had in the south. This assigning of property by the TC adminstration on the basis they controlled it regardless of the pre 74 owners rights was and still is legally 'dubious' to say the least but was done none the less. It is hard to see how a TC community post 74 could have been viable without doing this or something akin to it, given that most of the TC population had lost property in the south post 74.



In the south they did not treat those who had lost property in the North post 74 in a similar fashion, giving them freehold rights to TC property in exchange for what was lost, but the % of the population in the south in this situation was a minority of the total population around 20% where as in north it was a majority around 70-80% of total.

Stonehousepub


Joined: 21/05/2009
Posts: 755

Message Posted:
22/10/2011 19:32

Before anyone starts to assume that I am pro GC..... I am not !!



But I do get extremely p****d off with our greedy incapable goverments passed and present for putting us all in this mess. Land/property should have never been sold as freehold to non Cypriots !!

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
22/10/2011 19:37

Stonehousepub to date only one owner of 'disputed' deeds in the north has lost their property because of the disputed nature of those deeds. That is a fact. It might not be true in the future but is truee to date.



Some TC DID exchange their rights to land they owned in the south pre 74 with TC adminstration / government. As ot the RoC not recognising such exchange does not mean it did not happen. It did and it is a fact. Such people may try and claim now that such an exchange was not legal and they still own their pre 74 GC property rather than the TC adminstrationowning it, but they would be on very shaky ground expecially if they also have pre 74 GC property given to them in exchange.



Whilst the ECHR has determined that the pre 74 GC owners of land in the North remain legally the owners of said land, they have also recognised the right of Turkey to offer compensation for that loss rather than return in some cases and in some cases such compensation has been offerd [cont]

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
22/10/2011 19:42

accepted and paid.



In essesnce then the ECHR says the TC authorites can not just take pre 74 GC land and do what they want with it WITHOUT any recourse for the pre 74 owner, which is what they did prior to the IPC being set up. However they CAN in certain cirumstance offer compensation rahter than return as a valid means of redress to the pre 74 GC owner who can then choose to accept that or not. If they do not accept it they (gc pre 74 owner) do not loose their right to the property under law, but they do loose their right to have Turkey / TRNC redress them for that loss, pending a generic solution to the cyprus issue.

HildySmith


Joined: 02/07/2009
Posts: 1708

Message Posted:
22/10/2011 19:48

So my Advocate Sener Law Firm told me it was 'safe and secure' to buy exchange land is wrong. Someone said that a Greek can come and claim the land (which I got through Hasan Sungur President of the Estate Agents Union) and then I have to pay them compensation - IS THIS RIGHT!!!

If so. no wonder the are palming it off to Brits. When the greeks come along and claim the land he is sitting with our money and we have to pay compensation to the Greeks.

Have I got this right?????????

Its a frightening though if I have.

So much for being told it was 'safe and secure' by my advocate

Stonehousepub


Joined: 21/05/2009
Posts: 755

Message Posted:
22/10/2011 19:54

erolz



It is the past that determines the future.



My argument is that land/property which is still legally owned by GCs should not have been sold to any non Cypriots. It should have either been leased or directly purchased from the GC deed holder, with this senario the land/property disputes would have in effect been reduced, making negotiations a lot more amicable.



The TCs you mention that manged to pull off a half legal exchange with the TC administration ARE the administration...

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
22/10/2011 19:57

No Hildy Smith you have not got it right.



There is a chance that you could face a prosecutiuon in the South for trespass, as the Ormas did. However it remains unclear if such a prosecution would now be sucsessful, given the introduction of the IPC and its endorsment by the ECHR as a valid means of redress for GC who lost property as a result of the events of 74.



The facts remain that to date only ONE person has lost disputed title property in the North as a result of the disputed nature of the title. 'Safe' is a relative terms, nothing is absolutely safe.



To be honest it still astonishes me that people can have speant such large sums on property here and yet seem to know next to nothing about the history of the place and how that might impact their purchase.

Stonehousepub


Joined: 21/05/2009
Posts: 755

Message Posted:
22/10/2011 19:58

msg 17



Depends what your idea of safe and secure is....



You are not purchasing from the legal owner, how safe and secure can that be ??

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
22/10/2011 20:12

You are purchasing from someone given ownership by an entity that has effective de facto control and now also has legaly recognised means of effective redress for those who have de jure ownership for loss of said ownership. How safe and secure is that ? Statistically to date pretty safe and secure is the reality, though no one knows what will happen in the future. Maybe all of Cyprus will sink Atlantis like and no insurer will pay out because it is an act of god.

HildySmith


Joined: 02/07/2009
Posts: 1708

Message Posted:
22/10/2011 20:40

SO................................................

Is this why Hasan Sungur is demanding £20k for the plot of land my house stands on. He is set to gain £140,000.00 for land that was 'GIVEN' to him. But when I get the land, I may/will/cannot own it as it may belong to some Greek who can come and claim it.

BizziLizzi


Joined: 02/08/2011
Posts: 855

Message Posted:
22/10/2011 20:49

Yes, I too am suprised that people didnt read the history of the Island before buying property here.

I bought "exchange" land but I knew I was taking a calculated risk. My problem is I thought I had covered myself by keeping my house in Uk - wrong I was cheated by estate agents and tenants and the biaised UK laws did not protect me!



An Englishman's home isnt his castle - nor is anyone else's!



One thing I have never understood - was the Oram's TRNC property actually "exchange" land?



Erol - I bow to your superior knowledge but my reading indicated that the exchange was under UN Supervison? Water under the bridge perhaps now, but it does indicate a certain degree of acceptance ofa de facto situation.

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
22/10/2011 20:50

Hildy you appear to simply hear and understand only that which you want to hear and understand.



I do not know Hasan Sungur's personal situation but it is perfectly possible that a TC sells 'exchange deed' land for 140,000 sterling, having perviously lost vastly more than that not just in monetary terms of the land they have forsaken in the South, but also in lost loved ones and years living in fear in their own countty. Yet you seem to prefer to poratray a reality of them having got something for nothing which in most cases is so far from actual reality.



I actualy have great personal sympathy for the situation you are in but that does not mean that you are the only person to have suffered from what has happened in Cyprus past or present and that is how you come accross to me on these forums.

BizziLizzi


Joined: 02/08/2011
Posts: 855

Message Posted:
22/10/2011 20:59

Stonehousepub :



I bought my property from a Turkish Cypriot married to a mainland Turk. They wanted to move to Turkey to be with her family.



He hadnt found a Cypriot buyer for his house. If he had not sold it to an expat. he would have been prevented from making a perfectly resonable lifestyle decision because he had not only lost his original property in the South but the value of his exchange house . Would that have been fair?

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
22/10/2011 21:00

BizziLizzi the UN supervised the movement of people trapped either side post 74 who wanted to move. They did not supervise agreed exchanges of land not was this an agreed population movement. It was simply a case that if a TC found themselves trapped in the South after 74 and wanted to move to the North, the UN facilitated such movement. This is often portrayed by North propaganda as a 'population exchange agreement' but it was not is the reality. A copy if the actual agreement as documented by the UN can be found here



http://www.visionmatters.co.uk/cyprus/N7515145.pdf

jacko99


Joined: 26/06/2009
Posts: 52

Message Posted:
22/10/2011 21:00

yes hildy give no more money to lawyers the system is corupt they just take peoples money knowing they will

get judgements that can not be enforced no more money to landowners or goverment taxes for a piece of paper (so called titled deeds) just try and sell contract with key and possesion of property the whole of cyprus

just one big squatter camp and has been since year dot probably the residents of rome could probably claim

they own the whole of cyprus or grreks from athens or even us brits when we took off ottomen empire 1n 1878

or whenever as many people will know we got it and then gave all the land in trnc to the greek cyps in the 1930 s it was part of vakiv islamic trust which was within the ottomen empire i am afraid you are all squatters

and that goes for you greek cyps in the south

martinD41


Joined: 06/09/2010
Posts: 3001

Message Posted:
22/10/2011 21:08

If it's EXCHANGE , It has Greek Owners Who may come back and Nick it ..:(just ask YORGO, he knows Everything

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
22/10/2011 21:22

martinD41 if it is exchange it may have pre 74 GC owners who have subsequently accepted redress for that land either in money or alternative property via the IPC and thus have no further claim on it, though this is a small minority of all exchange land. It may also well be that any claim against it prior to a general settlement would be deemed invalid based on the fact that the GC owners had a valid means of redress and chose not to take it, but that is unkown currently. Finally whatever the status of a claim against it, the reality remains that there is some 'balancing' value of porperty in the South somewhere, which whilst it may not be of the same value has some value none the less. Which is what makes exchange different from land that was simply given without any 'balancing' value of land in the South.

misunderstood


Joined: 08/04/2011
Posts: 1004

Message Posted:
22/10/2011 21:23

message 24 - well said Erolz.

HildySmith


Joined: 02/07/2009
Posts: 1708

Message Posted:
22/10/2011 21:27

Erzol

Hasan Sungur is the President of the Estate Agents Union and Chairman of the Employers Union. He owns a vast amount of land in TRNC.

He contracted with an unregistered builder Cafer Yucelgazi to build on his exchange land with no build permit. This land had no infrastructure and no build permit (THIS IS THE PRESIDENT OF THE ESTATE AGENTS UNION AND CHAIRMAN OF THE EMPLOYERS UNION).

He did not sign our contract as he had a conttract with the unregistered builder to build on his exchanged land. We have waited 5 years for our houses. That is bad enought, but I read on my other posting that 'exchange' land could also be a problem. Hasan is asking for £20k from each BRITISH buyer so he gets £140,000.00 for land which each BRITISH BUYER then has to compensate a Greek for the pleasure of living on his land........................

WOW what a S***t hole

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
22/10/2011 21:44

Hildy as I have already said I do have sympathy for your situation. I wish you were not in it. I wish the TRNC had systems in place that did not allow these things to happen and a legal system that was an effective means of redress when they do happen and I accept that it does not and that is a shame on the TRNC.



To have just discovered now that title to the majority of property in the North is disputed is to me simply amazing. To assume and state that any TC with exchange property or any exchange property Hasan Sungar had or has as a result of 74 means he was 'given' it for 'nothing', as you seem to have done, is not fair or correct to me.



Your problems are nothing to do with the disputed nature of 'exchange' title land here is the simple reality. That does not mean they are not real problems that have and are causing you great personal suffering and should be ignored. However if you just hit out at everything and everyone in frustration, whilst understandable, is not useful im

HildySmith


Joined: 02/07/2009
Posts: 1708

Message Posted:
22/10/2011 21:51

My Advocate: Sener Law Firm informed me that Exchange/esdege land was 'safe and secure'. This is also confirmed in a letter Ayhan Sener wrote on the internet as follows which states:



"As for the issue of the title deed on advising us of the property you wish to purchase we would conduct our own independent searches at the land registry and advise you of the type of deed which the property held, as well as the current status of the land. As I can see from Cameron�s reply to you the property is of exchange title which is a very safe and secure title to purchase. This is something which we can discuss further, if you have any specific questions."



IS THIS WRONG - HAVE i BEEN LIED TO????

HildySmith


Joined: 02/07/2009
Posts: 1708

Message Posted:
22/10/2011 21:55

is this

'Safe and Secure'

If not, why is Hasan Sungur demanding £40k for land which I have already paid for through buying my house as a solution to dealing with a problem of waiting:

- 5 years for a house

- builder declared himself bankrupt - DID ANYONE ELSE BY OR DEAL WITH ASPIRE TRADING LTD

Hasan told me that Cafer Yucelgazi's wife works for the Interior Ministry???????

Surely this means that they knew what they were doing????????

HELP!!!!! HELP!!!!! HELP!!!!!

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
22/10/2011 22:14

Hildy if one person out of say 200,000 who purchased X, lost out because of the nature of X, would you claim you had been lied to if someone said buying X is safe and secure ?



If you think yes, then you were lied to. If you think no then you were not lied to.



I bought a property in London in the 90's. Everyone told me it was the right thing to do, estate agents, mortgage brokers, my solicitor who handled the sale said nothing about it not being a safe thing to do, my own Mother advised me 'getting on the property ladder' was a sesnible and necessary thing to do. 6 months after I had bought the property it was worth less than the mortgage I had taken out to buy it. Was I lied to ?



All purchases involve an element of risk. None of your problems realted to the nature of your deed being 'exchange' or disputed. In that sense being told that such types of deeds are safe and secure has to date been the case. Its not same as saying there is no risk in the purchase itself.

yorgozlu



Joined: 16/06/2009
Posts: 4437

Message Posted:
22/10/2011 23:13

erolz,

I bow to your patience.

'Brits' mentioned in my comments re msg 2 for the reason of brits being in majority.



episode 2,

The so called construction companies whom are in full knowledge of the situation have taken the so called system and law for a ride,along with you.ie.PTP requirements.Hence the reason they are demanding extourtous amount of money just to give you your 'deeds'.



Be realistic,when did you ever buy a property in uk where you had to beg the developer for your deeds?







'you must apply for your ptp before buying,but you can't apply before buying!'







.....did someone mention,pushing for recognition?

yorgozlu



Joined: 16/06/2009
Posts: 4437

Message Posted:
22/10/2011 23:20

erolz,

I beg to differ.

You buying a property in uk and falling in negative equity 6 months after is a completly different matter and a natural matter,as opposed to situation in trnc.



I too,bought a property in early 2000 and sold it for £70.000 less 2 years ago

,in uk.Should I be blaming the british system for that?

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
22/10/2011 23:28

Yorgozlu I was just trying to make the point that ANY purchase involves an element of risk. Certainly the risk in buying here in the TRNC is vastly higher than buying in the UK but not because of the disputed nature of titles per se, at least to date, but simply because the whole system here around buying property is a mess, the laws themselves are inadequate, the implementation of what laws there are is inadequate and the legal system that should act as a saftey net to provide redress when the previous fail is also itself inadequate. I absolutelty accept that and this inadequacy and the suffering it has caused people makes me ashamed of the TRNC in this regard and the longer it persists the more ashamed I am about it and if I could do more than I already do to try and help get it changed I would.

yorgozlu



Joined: 16/06/2009
Posts: 4437

Message Posted:
22/10/2011 23:38

erolz,re 38



' I absolutelty accept that and this inadequacy and the suffering it has caused people makes me ashamed of the TRNC in this regard and the longer it persists the more ashamed I am about it and if I could do more than I already do to try and help get it changed I would.









likewise.

yorgozlu



Joined: 16/06/2009
Posts: 4437

Message Posted:
22/10/2011 23:45

HildySmith



I'd pay the demanded sum,only at the time of receiving my deeds,since you won't be getting them any other way.



at least that way you'll be able to start cutting your loses. :(



(just being realistic)

Bradus


Joined: 25/02/2007
Posts: 2641

Message Posted:
23/10/2011 01:04

Other than a few TC and Hildy asking this question, the input from those having bought GC land appears lost. Maybe a bit to near the knuckles and difficult to dispute?



Lets divert and go back to dog threads.

pc4854


Joined: 23/08/2009
Posts: 243

Message Posted:
23/10/2011 09:25

I seem to remember being told when I purchased my land, that the "exchange Deed" was no longer recognised by the government here. From that point in time (around 2004), all deeds issued by the government department were now just government deeds and I believe that the "E" which signified exchange, has also been removed from the deeds.

HildySmith


Joined: 02/07/2009
Posts: 1708

Message Posted:
23/10/2011 12:30

I bought in 2006 and was assured that it was totally "safe and secure" by Sener Law Firm.

The document written by Ayhan Sener is still on the internet.

Ballyboffin


Joined: 25/08/2007
Posts: 903

Message Posted:
23/10/2011 14:51

SO......... The only 100% SAFE title would be a Pre-74 Turkish and the only way for a non TC to buy that would be a re-sale with the Kochan already in a foreigner's name, is this correct?

philbailey


Joined: 17/01/2011
Posts: 3534

Message Posted:
23/10/2011 15:19

When does the ipc close ?

yorgozlu



Joined: 16/06/2009
Posts: 4437

Message Posted:
23/10/2011 15:43

msg 42



'all deeds issued by the government '



What government would that be?



Unles your land\property is pre 74,as a forigner,your deeds are not worth the paper they are written on.Hence the reason none of you can do nothing about being mistreated,illegal acts.



Saying that,as much as I as a tC,feel ashamed of this situation,I blame you just as much for buying.Which is why I sometimes come with comments like.................cheap properties.





however,I'm not suggesting at all of 2 wrongs making one right.

BizziLizzi


Joined: 02/08/2011
Posts: 855

Message Posted:
23/10/2011 18:03

HildySmith



with respect, and stressing this is a personal view, you are allowing yourself to be diverted into a red herring by exchange land. There is such a thing a caveat emptor (let the buyer beware) and your advocate would have a case to argue that he could reasonably expect a purchaser of land in North Cyprus to be aware of the international situation and the fact that there was a dispute over rights to land. He advised it was safe within the laws of the T.R.N.C. and as far as I know within that framework it was and is. As far as I am concerned the case for negligence in respect of exchange land is against the International Communtiy (and particular the UK and Greece as guarantor powers) who failed their obligations in respect of genocide and blamed Turkey when they took unilateral action as they were entitled to do.



I dont understand your case about the developer and Estate Agent, but you may be distracting from it by bringing in the exchange issue.

BizziLizzi


Joined: 02/08/2011
Posts: 855

Message Posted:
23/10/2011 18:20

Bradus is wrong. I bought EX GC. land and I am vitally interest inthis discussion!



The difference is that I bought in the l990s before the Anan Plan and when there were no apparent bargains from developers . I bought cheaply because I wanted to retain my property in UK, and the jproperty here was cheap because it was in poor condition - I renovated it gradually as and when I was able to save up a few pennies to do so and worked hard on it. As far as I am aware my Estate Agent, Solicitor and Builder (for th renovations) looked after my interests and even made sure outstanding utility bills were paid out of the purchase price! At that time the TRNC autorities welcome expatriate purchasers because we contributed by renovating delipidated properties and did not make excessive demands on the infrastructure with swimming pools, expensive electrics etc. Yet I am apparently int he same state of inscurity as those who were let us say niaive in their search for luxury by the sea.

BizziLizzi


Joined: 02/08/2011
Posts: 855

Message Posted:
23/10/2011 18:27

I dont condone the behaviour of some developers, lawyers and estate agents, I deplore it, but it happens everywhere - as I said before my major problem was in the UK where the law did not protect me against negligent Agents and Solicitors . The peculiar situation of the TRNC and he shenanigans of the European Union just gave a brilliant opportunity for the vultures to prey on the niaive!

Hector


Joined: 26/08/2008
Posts: 2352

Message Posted:
23/10/2011 19:41

How can a land 'owner' ask for money if there is no planning permission for the houses built on his land and therefore whoever bought those houses cannot get their kochans or get connected to water and electricity? If it's unlawful to build houses without planning permission why has no action been taken against those who have done?

billlfc



Joined: 04/11/2008
Posts: 69

Message Posted:
23/10/2011 19:58

hildy please look at my info on your thread that has reach 200

HildySmith


Joined: 02/07/2009
Posts: 1708

Message Posted:
23/10/2011 20:13

Another point to consider is that when the plans and the house numbers were changed (thanks to Hasan Sungur's houses being dumped in front of my house) Our plot size differs from the origianl specification. I have been told that the final inspection will not pass this

Is that right?

philbailey


Joined: 17/01/2011
Posts: 3534

Message Posted:
23/10/2011 21:12

I still find hard to believe

that people buy without knowing the history

HildySmith


Joined: 02/07/2009
Posts: 1708

Message Posted:
23/10/2011 21:19

We thought we had done all of our homework.

We did not expect or think that we had an Advocate to lied to us and assisted in deceiving us in more ways that one.

Not only did the give us false information but after 3 years we found that there was:

No Build Permit

No Contract Registration

No Landowners (Hasan Sungur's) signature on the contract which prevented registration

Then they changed the whole of the project and dumped the Landowners houses in front of ours.

YOU CAN DO ALL THE HOMEWORK YOU LIKE BUT WHEN YOU ARE DEALING WITH DECEITFUL PEOPLE THEY HAVE WAYS OF BREACHING YOUR DEFENCES!!!!

TRNCvictim


Joined: 17/08/2010
Posts: 1417

Message Posted:
23/10/2011 22:21

BizziLizzi (mess 49)



What happens everywhere else is immaterial to victims on this board! what happens in the TRNC is what counts? we can only fight the corruption we know!



Please continue to enjoy your property and I am happy for you that the TRNC authorities welcome you! but at the same time understand many victims certainly were NOT naive they did everything by the book, they unfortunately didn't have your LUCK!



Your condesending approach is difficult for those of us who searched for LUXURY BY THE SEA

Browneyes


Joined: 07/09/2011
Posts: 52

Message Posted:
23/10/2011 22:50

BILL,

THANKS FOR A GREAT SUGGESTION I WILL BE WILLING AND DELIGHTED TO MEET AT THE LODGE !

is Tim going to be there !!! ;)

andre514


Joined: 05/10/2010
Posts: 763

Message Posted:
23/10/2011 22:51

message 12, shb:



trnc deeds not worth the paper they are printed on?



remember that worth in this case may be determined by an estate agent valuation

...in that sense at least, those deeds may have considerable market value



secondly...you state there is unlikely to be a settlement or so you think, perhaps with

considerable justification...so how can the greek cypriots ever claim what is supposedly

theirs?



think other lost causes like the native americans, poles from lvov and a thousand others

TRNCvictim


Joined: 17/08/2010
Posts: 1417

Message Posted:
23/10/2011 23:05

andrea514 (mess 57)



How sad! just to be a lost cause!

BizziLizzi


Joined: 02/08/2011
Posts: 855

Message Posted:
23/10/2011 23:13

TRNC victim: I am sorry I sound condescending - I do not mean to be. You are bitter about how you were treated in the TRNC , I am bitter about the way I was treated in the UK. There are vultures everywhere - dont tar all Turkish Cypriots with the same brush and spoil relations with the good ones.

And everyone makes mistakes - I think people buying off plan here were niaive - it could equally be argued that I was unwise in not protecting my interests in the UK! Either way we all end up insecure!



But it was not entirely "luck" that I was well treated by Turkish Cypriots. I rented for two years before I bought (and was taken for "mug" by one of the landlords) during which time I made friends, asked a lot of questions and learned who could be trusted. I also learned that in some areas TC's have a slighly different "take" on business ethics and that as an non citizen I must learn to work with it - although I dont always succeed even now!

BizziLizzi


Joined: 02/08/2011
Posts: 855

Message Posted:
23/10/2011 23:24

Unfortunately people come here with false perceptions. They expect it to be a Meditteranean playground - like Monte Carlo or the Rviera but cheaper! or they try to impose the British way of life on it - it isnt , it is an island with a troubled history and a country stuggling against great odds, and you have to learn to live with the results or go under. If I may go slightly off topic for a moment I am bitter because my quality of life here has been seriously damage by the inappropriate impositions of "newcomers".



And frankly I still cant understand why anyone who "did their homework" could have failed to realise that the vast majority of land in the TRNC was subject to international dispute, or for that matter fail to ask themselves why it was so comparatively cheap - there is nosuch thing as a free lunch

Stonehousepub


Joined: 21/05/2009
Posts: 755

Message Posted:
23/10/2011 23:55

msg 57



andre514



Yes settlement is highly unlikely in any of our lifetimes (my opinion).



Put yourself in a the position of a GC. who legally owns land or property in the north and is in possesion of the original republic of Cyprus deeds written in Greek, Turkish and English.



How would you feel if this land or property was then re-branded and sold on misleadingly to 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th parties ??? Would you not want to claim what is rightfully yours ??



Then think about that same land or property. But only this time it has not been sold on as a freehold concern and instead it has been leased or let, and most of the income from this land or property has been put into a bank account in the name of the true owner... (a much more civilised method don't you think). That is what the GCs done with with the majority of pre74 TC land or property, they certainly hav'nt sold any TC land to non cypriots....



They have no right to do they ?? But it's ok for us to do it....

Stonehousepub


Joined: 21/05/2009
Posts: 755

Message Posted:
24/10/2011 00:05

contd....



Because of the above TRNC exchange title deed is not worth shite (my opinion), yes in this false property market where there is not even a survey and valuation system, having deeds will make a property attractive to a potential purchaser but thats about it.... Maybe enough for some people who just want out but not enough to justify rightful ownership outside of the TRNC...



TRNC banks will not even lend on exchange property....

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
24/10/2011 00:07

Stonehouse to compare how each community treated property post 74, without recognising and noting the different ratios each side had of disputed and undisputed property is not a balanced approach. The options a state (or want to be state) has when 20% of its populations property assets value is unrealisable indefinately is simply not the same when 70-80% of the populations property asset value is unrealisable indefinately.



It should also be recognised, in my opinion, that whilst on paper the way the RoC has treated 'lost' TC property in the South is 'more civilised' as you say, the reality on the ground is very different. Do you REALLY believe these mythical bank accounts exist where most of the fair market income for the use of pre 74 TC land in the South is sitting today accumulating interest ? Do you you know how many TC have got this money or what the requirments are for them to do so ?



[cont]

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
24/10/2011 00:13

For me the different ways that each side treated the 'lost' property of the other post 74 has been entirely a function of politics and praticality. I simply do not beleive the RoC treated 'lost' TC property in the South different to the way the North adminstrations treated the reverse because it was more comitted to legality or fairness or civilised behaviour. It treated it differently because its politcal objectives were different and the raitos of how much total private property was disputed allowed it to do so, is my firm belief. Politicaly the RoC had an overwhealming objective to not do anything to 'solidfy' the partition created in 74 and to maintian an aura of return to a pre 74 status quo. It persued this objective with next to no regard for the suffering of its own citizen who had lost land and was able to do so because they were a minority of the total population. In effect it sacraficed their interests for a larger political objective imo.

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
24/10/2011 00:23

Stonehousepub it is not actualy true to say TRNC banks will not lend against exchange property in the North. Whilst you personaly may think such deeds are worthless, the fact is they do have a worth, there is a market in them, that market has existed since the late 70's and continues today. Like all markets it has fluctuated and continues to do so, but its existance is real and undisputable imo. To me the failures of the systems around buying property and the legal system generaly here have had and continue to have a much greater impact of that market than disputed nature of deeds does and rightly so when you look historicaly at the actual loss accrued by people from each of these causes. In pure monetary terms as far as I am concerned it is just as likely that owners of 'disputed' title properties here would accrue substantial increase in value of these assets as a result of a settlement as loss, should such a settlement happen.

Stonehousepub


Joined: 21/05/2009
Posts: 755

Message Posted:
24/10/2011 00:27

Back in 1999 I purchased a high value car from a reputable dealer in Hertfordshire, it was advertised at a lower than average price in the Top Marques magazine and was exactly what I was looking for... so after a view and test drive I decided to make the purchase.



I paid the dealer a deposit and arranged for the car to be delivered to my business address on the following Saturday morning, I carried out all the HPI checks one day before and everything was fine.



Cut a long story short after about 6 months I started recieving parking fines for places I had never been to, shortly after DVLA in wimbledon wrote to me wanting to inspect the vehicle. Buy this time I kind of new what was going to follow, DVLA suggested a police inspection which I ignored until one day the police turned up with a warrant to take the car.... I never saw the car again it was a cloned vehicle.



The rest is history....

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
24/10/2011 00:35

Indeed Stonehousepub it is 'history'.



In the history of 35+ years of disputed title deed sales and transfers in the North of Cyprus, only one 'person' has lost out because of the disputed nature of the deeds. That is just historical fact.



You can play up what might happend in the future as much as you like and as consistently as you like but you can not get away from historical fact.



Yes there are potential future risks with disputed title deeds property and the market reflects those risks in cheaper prices, but to say that actualy there is no value at all in such deeds because of some potential risk in the future that can not be quantified and may not ever manifest and to date has only affect a single purchases out of 10s or 100s of thousands of such purchases is not a 'balanced' view in my humble opinion.

Stonehousepub


Joined: 21/05/2009
Posts: 755

Message Posted:
24/10/2011 00:49

Erolz



So tell me do you actually believe that selling someone elses land or property to a 3rd party non-cypriot is right???



In my book it is not the right thing to do and we have shot ourselves in the foot by doing so imo...



The title question is coming from a non-cypriot asking how safe exchange deeds are... Can you assure her that she will be the legal owner of what she has purchased or intends to purchase ??



Can we guarantee these people that their properties will not be taken from them and that their children and grandchildren with be able to legally inherit these properties ???



If the answers to my above two questions are yes then Exchange title is a safe buy ?



Not safer, not safe as, not reasonably safe but 100% safe is what I want when spending 100k

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
24/10/2011 00:59

I do not believe that the TC adminstrations had a right to sieze pre 74 GC properties and give freehold title to those properties to others WITHOUT offering a means fo fair redress for the pre 74 owners. I do however believe that the way forward largely defined by the ECHR with the setting up of the IPC, whereby the TC adminstration (as an agent of Turkey) offers a means of fair redress to those that lost property in the North is essentialy fair.



I have never said or argued that exchange deeds carry NO risk what so ever because of their disputed nature. I just dispute the argument that therefore because they carry some potential risk they are worthless. It remains a fact that in over 35 years of transactions of such properties only one person has lost because of the disputed nature of the title



I own disputed title deed property in the north, through inheritance. It is just a fact that it does have some value.

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
24/10/2011 01:05

I simply do not believe or accept your claim that my ownership / deed of this property is worthless because it clearly is not worthless. Despite what you say it has a very real value. That is just the plain reality of the matter.



For all I know, the pre74 owner of the property I own may have sought and accept and recived compensation for this property via the IPC. Statistically the chances is low but some such 'exchange' deed property certainly exists in the North. Foremely disputed deed title property in this category is now effectively 'safe'.



It seems you want me to believe that the property I have inherited is valueless. I just do not believe it, because it just is not true in my opinion, nor that of the 'market' I would suggest.

Stonehousepub


Joined: 21/05/2009
Posts: 755

Message Posted:
24/10/2011 01:14

msg 67



Yes one person too many my friend....



We are talking about property purchase in the the 21st century, the largest single purchase most people make in their lifetimes... and you still continue to write about potential future risks, disputes and historical facts ??



I'm not playing up what might happen I am stating the facts as it is in black & white, for some reason you do not want to understand this.



The dirty Greeks are still the legal & rightful owners of these exchange properties whatever you say is not going to change that....



Deeds that our tinpot regime have made up are not enough to proove legal ownership.... it's common sense

Stonehousepub


Joined: 21/05/2009
Posts: 755

Message Posted:
24/10/2011 01:28

msg 70



Erolz



You may think I am scaremongering, I am not, what I am doing is stating the facts. I also have a few properties in the TRNC but I would not kid myself saying that exchange title deeds are safe.



Have you ever heard of the English proverb "safe as houses" ??



When you make investments involving property and large sums of money ownership has to be 100%



Not subject to dispute, or potential dispute, no ifs, buts or maybes and no "for all I knows", and no pre 1974 statistics.



It has to be "safe as houses"

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
24/10/2011 01:34

Yes one person is one too many, just as your experience with buying a cheap car is one too many, but it does not therefore mean anyone who purhcases a car the way you do has a worthless car.



What I am doing is pointing out risk based on a history of 35+ years of historical fact. In 35+ years one purchaser has lost out because of the dispute nature of the title of the property they bought here, one out of probaly 100's of thousands of transactions. On this basis you are claiming all such deeds are worthless and that makes no sense to me.



There are no 'greeks' involved in this, dirty or otherwise. There are GC involved and those that have not sought and accepted compensation remain the legal owners but no the de facto ones is the reality. Sooner or later they will and should recieve redress for their loss. Again historicaly of those that have recived redress to date, one has recvied minimal limited redress from an indivdual buyer, resulting in loss to that buyer and hundreds [cont]

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
24/10/2011 01:40

have recived compensation from Turkey, with the 2ndary owners / buyers not only not suffering any loss as a result of this but in fact making considerable gain.



Once more you are putting words into my mouth that I have never uttered. I have never said that disputed deeds are 'safe' or carry 'no risk' or are '100% safe'. What I have done and continue to do is try and be realistic about what the actual rsik is based on hard evidence, nothing more.



If you personaly only want to buy property where there is no risk from disputed title, that is indeed your choice and probably a sensible one in many ways, and you will have to pay the extra cost for such security. I have no issue with that, but you claming that all exchange deed property is 'worthless' is just plainly not true. Your implication that anyone who has such property will without doubt personaly loose out at some point as a result of its disputed nature is not a 'balanced' view based on evidence imo.

HildySmith


Joined: 02/07/2009
Posts: 1708

Message Posted:
24/10/2011 05:25

Erolz: thank you for your comprehensive inforamtion on this topic. You state:

Hildy you appear to simply hear and understand only that which you want to hear and understand'.

I am sorry if I come across that way, however, I am just trying to understand a very complex system and relate it to how it affects me.

I am told that the Landowner gets 1 house in 5 on our site. He has 2 built but now wants me to pay for land which 'technically' he does (or does not own) and that I may in future have to pay compensation to a GC for the land after I have paid Hasan Sungur for the land. Have I got this right or not? I am sorry but I am not getting the picture of where I stand.

With regards to the UK. I bought my first house in 1965, aged 18 years I was not even old enough to sign for the house or the mortgage and had to get a relative to do it. I have owned 5 houses in the UK with No problems.

In relation to Cyprus I have read all the books and written to my MP and David Cameron on thi

HildySmith


Joined: 02/07/2009
Posts: 1708

Message Posted:
24/10/2011 05:32

In relation to Cyprus situation I have read all the books and I found them very distressing. I remember Arch Bishop Makarios coming to the UK and 'spouting his mouth off'. I was astounded that a man who professed to being a christian could talk as he did in a way which is totally opposite to Christian beliefs. The Ten Commandments state: Thou Shalt not Kill but he was preaching this and stating (If I remember it rightly words to the effect) that he would not rest until every Turk was off the island one way or another. So I have taken an interest in the Cyprus situation for some time. I have also written to my MP and David Cameron on this matter and received responses from both.

So Erolz I do know about the suffering of the Cypriot people and I sympathise greatly with them. I have also passed my books onto other people so that the full story can be spread to others. I have commented on facebook on this matter too.

HildySmith


Joined: 02/07/2009
Posts: 1708

Message Posted:
24/10/2011 05:54

Many people are stating that the the Brits (and others) come here for 'cheap' property.

I come from the North East of England. I spoke to Cafer Yucelgazi's advocate to trained in Sunderland. He commented that the prices in Sunderland were the same as here. I sold my house in the UK for £89k and bought here for over £90k to date. The people in the north of England do not get the large sums for their houses that are achievable in the south/London Area.

I had a 3 bed extended semi, in a fishing village named Whitburn on the 'beautiful sandy' north east coast. It had a nice garden within walking distance to the sea, Sunderland and South Shields. It is classed as the 'posh/well to do area' of town. When I sold it, I sold it for £125k - that is the norm for that area. So I did not come here with pots of money, just a trusting heart.

I now know I never saw or communicated with 'my Advocate Mustafa Sener' for the first year - only his wife who decribed herself as an 'ESSEX GIRL' m..

HildySmith


Joined: 02/07/2009
Posts: 1708

Message Posted:
24/10/2011 06:17

One thing I would like to do is thank you all for your contribution here. I have learnt a lot and I am sure that others have too.

I have been renting here for 18 months and I take my obligations re living in TRNC seriously.

I have raised money in the UK to assist with KAR by bringing with me over £350 of equipment and medication.

I did dog obedience demonstration at the Chateau market & raised 100tl+ and £'s and Euros (in 2 hours) and handed it over to the KAR.

I have been back to the UK again last month and brought £100 from my local pub (see KAR website)

When I visit a beach I take large black sacks with me to remove rubbish from the beaches. On one occasion I removed 5 bags of rubbish (because someone had stacked it) I put it in the bins on the way home.

I took 2 dogs off the streets and when I find an animal which needs help (as I did yesterday) I bring it home and deal with it. (Sorry to the other drivers, I had to stop the traffic in Karaglanoglu as there was a tiny ki

HildySmith


Joined: 02/07/2009
Posts: 1708

Message Posted:
24/10/2011 06:20

tiny kitten distressed in the middle of the road which surely would have been killed.

I have good TC neighbours and friends and therefore do not regret moving here.

HildySmith


Joined: 02/07/2009
Posts: 1708

Message Posted:
24/10/2011 07:04

If I had been looking for just a 'cheap' house I would have bought in the south. I was on holiday in Limasol and was looking at the properties available out of interest. I found 2 properties in need of renovation one was £8k and one was £11k.

Bot required a lot of renovation work but as I have had to renovate 4 of my 5 homes to date that was not a problem. They both had water and electic and the amount of rooms were adequate. When I suggested to my Son that we go and have a look at them out of curiosity he said 'No Mam, you do not want to buy here, it is a dump. Go up North, the place is much more beautiful, the houses compare with North East England prices and the people are so much more friendly' (He had lived in the south for 7 years). He brought me up north and I fell in love with it. And, yes Erolz, I was ignorant and I still am, but thanks to people like you giving detailed infrmation here, we can all learn. Thank you!!!!!

Enchanted


Joined: 20/07/2008
Posts: 159

Message Posted:
24/10/2011 07:25

Does the TRNC goverment believe that exchange land has any status or value? I don't think so.

The legal fees for the Orams case were in excess of 2m..... all paid of course!!

Did the Orams get any compensation for their lost home.... of course not!!

In this world the sharks eat the little fishes

Hector


Joined: 26/08/2008
Posts: 2352

Message Posted:
24/10/2011 10:29

I haven't had a response to my post 50 as to why, if it's unlawful to build on land without planning permission, that those land owners that have, haven't had action taken against them i.e. made to tear down what has been built or fined?

HildySmith


Joined: 02/07/2009
Posts: 1708

Message Posted:
24/10/2011 10:38

MISUNDERSTOOD:

I have been asked to request of you by Benan at Remax.

She does not have a copy of any build permit for the Incesu property, could you please send her one.



NOW ISN'T THAT STRANGE:

Hasan Sungur takes Cafer Yucelgazi to Remax and persuades them to sell the Incesu project houses - without giving her a copy of the build permit.

Now, 5 years later neither the Estate Agent nor the Advocates can get copies of the Build Permit - one turns up.

REMAX IS A MEMBER OF HIS UNION - wouldn't you think that she would have received a copy at any time when it was completed.

misunderstood


Joined: 08/04/2011
Posts: 1004

Message Posted:
24/10/2011 12:42

Hildy I misunderstood, apparently what I was shown was the architects plans and drawings with the official stamps on from the relevent offices passing them for planning purposes. I am now led to believe that the

buillding permit something that is issued by the Beledeysi called a Ruhsati, I have also been informed that this was the responsibility of the builder Cafer to obtain. My mistake, my apologies. Perhaps Benan might like to ask Mr Yucelgazi. I did not say I had a copy Hilidy, only that I was shown the above mentioned and mistook it for permission. You are the seond one to point out my mistake. I have apologised to them and now I apolgise to you.

Stonehousepub


Joined: 21/05/2009
Posts: 755

Message Posted:
24/10/2011 13:02

Can someone please read my above posts and let me know if thay are so difficult to comprehend...



Erolz



The purpose of me explaining my car senario was to try and make you understand that in the end the car was returned to its rightful owner. This was a 27.000stg vehicle that had had its identity changed. Very similar to the exchange deed situation.



If you were to stand up in a court today with your TRNC exchange deed alongside the rightful GC owner holding his original republic of Cyprus deeds, who do you think the judge would grant posession to ??



I cannot believe that you still continue to argue that exchange titles are safe....

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
24/10/2011 13:21

Stonehousepub I can not believe that you still claim that I am saying that disputed title deed property is 'safe'. I have not said that, I have said explicitly above serval times that I have not said it and still you claim I am saying it. Risk is not binary, with something being entirely safe or otherwise entirely unsafe. It is a matter of degrees of risk.



The situation with the car you bought in the UK is totaly different in that the disputed nature of the ownership of the car did not arise out of an ethnic war, nor was it passed to you by a de facto adminstration in effective control of it in exchange for a car you had lost yourself as a result of the ethnic conflict.



If I were to stand up in a court WHERE ? If I were to stand up in a court in the TRNC, the judge would almost certainly uphold my rights within the TRNC as the owner as far as the TRNC is concerned and probably refer the pre 74 GC owner to the IPC.

Stonehousepub


Joined: 21/05/2009
Posts: 755

Message Posted:
24/10/2011 13:52

Erolz.



So what are you saying?



Is purchasing property or land in the TRNC under exchange title entirely safe or entirely unsafe ?? Do you believe that such a large purchase should involve a degree risk ?? And that it may or may not be a subject of dispute.... Is that morally correct in you book ??



Try not to forget the original post msg1, this non cypriot lady has been told that exchange title is safe and secure.... It is not as the Orams case has proved, how can these people be assured that they will not be subject to the same senario ??



Did you know the land that Cratos, Noahs Arc and Kaya Artemis hotels are built on were purchased directly from the GC owners thus to avoid any future disputes ??



They obviosly do not hold much faith in the exchange title either....

misunderstood


Joined: 08/04/2011
Posts: 1004

Message Posted:
24/10/2011 13:55

I sent for details after seeing an advertisement for Leiws estates in the Mail on Sunday in Britain in 2005



I received a nice glossy card at my Uk address from Lewis Estates (now defunct)



This is what it said in the section titled Buyer's guide



"There are 4 types of Title Deeds,



Foreign Title English or German (100% safe)



Pre 74 Turkish Title (100% safe)



TRNC exchange, where land has been exchanged officially between Greek and Turkish government (100% safe



TMD Turkish mainland title (This is only about 70% safe and is open to land compensation claims by the Greeks)



What a load of bull, I wonder if I could claim against the Mail on Sunday??

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
24/10/2011 14:02

Stonehousepub I am saying that disputed title property carrys a DEGREE of risk. The clue is in the discription I use of it being DISPUTED. It is neither entirely safe not entirely unsafe. The historical facts are that to date one purchaser of such property out of 10's or 100's of thousands have lost said property because of its disputed nature. 10's or 100's of thousands have NOT lost use of said property or suffered any financial loss because of its disputed nature for the 35 years or so such disputed nature property has existed.



You can try and do a private deal with pre 74 GC owner of disputed property but the idea that doing this makes it '100% safe' is itself as misguided as saying not doing it makes it 100% unsafe. Is the cratos hotel registered in the ROC land registry as being owned by the Turkish owners ? No it is not. In fact under RoC law the pre 74 owners is not allowed to sell it, so its still disputed, if not by the pre 74 owner then by the RoC itself.

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
24/10/2011 14:06

For the record Stonehousepub I would not advise anyone to buy ANY property in the North right now, not because of the risk of disputed title deeds, which is minimal, but because the risks involved in doing so because of the failures of the systems and laws around purchasing property here and the failures of the legal system here when things go wrong, which is a much more real and higher risk by several orders of magnitude than that posed by disputed nature of the deeds.

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
24/10/2011 14:10

misunderstood that advert from 2005 is based on the situation in 2005 and pre dates the Orams case. It is essentialy based on what the Annan Plan proposed re property should the settlement be agreed. I personaly do not think it was accurate then nor now, but are you really surprised that estate agents or developers are economical with the truth about propety they are selling ? I personaly would not trust as gospel anything an estate agent claimed about a property they were selling in any country in the world.

Stonehousepub


Joined: 21/05/2009
Posts: 755

Message Posted:
24/10/2011 15:53

Erolz



I'm enjoying this....



So we have agreed that the TRNC exchange title carries a degree of risk and that It is not entirely safe but at the same time not entirely unsafe ;) Great !!



And you are now advising people to not invest their cash into the TRNC property market, but at the same time you are trying to promote TRNC exchange title deeds as kind of OK, depending on which way the wind will blow.



Not good enough my friend. I've said this before and I will say it again.... It has to be 100% SAFE !! If is'nt then imo it is not worth the paper it is written on.

HildySmith


Joined: 02/07/2009
Posts: 1708

Message Posted:
24/10/2011 16:04

Misunderstood:

I know the document you are referring to, I do have copies of them.

There is NO BUILD PERMIT ON THIS LAND.

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
24/10/2011 16:15

All I am trying to do Stonehousepub is provide accurate information so people can make informed decisions.



There is a risk of loss due to the disputed nature of deeds. Lets call that risk A. There is risk of loss due to the failures of the systems and laws around property purchase here and failures of the legal system to act ans an effective means of redress in cases of such failures. Lets call that risk B.



We have 35 years that these kind of disputed titles deeds have existed. In that 35 years



One purchaser has lost because of risk A

Thousands, possibly as hig as 15,000 purchasers have lost because of risk B.



I say given the historical facts to date risk A is minimal and risk B is not. It really is that simple. Even if those that have sufferd loss from risk B is 'only' 10,000 then the still means that you are 10,000 times more likely to suffer loss because of risk B than because of risk A, based on historical data. Do you get that ? 10 thousands times more risky.

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
24/10/2011 16:24

So harp on all you like about how risky disputed deeds are because of their disputed nature and ignore the risk that is around 10,000 times greater and then claim I am misleading people about buying property here in the TRNC. Keep stating that something that has a demonstrable value is worthless, even though it clearly is not worthless and then make out I am misleading people if you like.



The fact is my 'worthless' deed has allowed my father and after him me to enjoy the property it relates to for over 20 years now. It has a real current market value today that could be realised should I wish to. Yet you insist it is worthless. So be it. Say the sun rises in the west if you like, but just saying it over and over does not actualy make it true.

HildySmith


Joined: 02/07/2009
Posts: 1708

Message Posted:
24/10/2011 16:33

On this occasions I agree with Misunderstood.

I picked up a leaflet here a few years ago and it told me that the laws here were the same as England and that it was safe to buy here. We also read the information that Misunderstood has.

I was then told by Ayhan Sener that it was 'Absolutely safe and secure'.

HildySmith


Joined: 02/07/2009
Posts: 1708

Message Posted:
24/10/2011 17:07

Hector (50 & 82)

A TC friend took me to the local offices and I was lead to believe that if this is the case the Kaymacumlik (not sure of the spelling) Sues the LANDOWNER.

But to do this someone has to write to the Kaymacumlik and inform the of the situation.

Cafer built the house I rented in Karsiyaka and that had no build permit either.

Stonehousepub


Joined: 21/05/2009
Posts: 755

Message Posted:
24/10/2011 17:57

Erolz



We are not talking about your personal situation regards your inherited property.



We are talking about non-cypriot (mainly ex pats) who purchase exchange title property, in the eyes of the world they will never legally own that property because it already has a legal owner. What part of this are you not understanding ??



The TRNC is illegally ocuppied, a solution has not been reached and GCs do not have access to what is legally theirs.... What gives our goverment the right to make up deeds and allow for these lands & properties to be sold on to British ex-pats ?? It is illegal and immoral.



These poor brits will be the first to lose their properties in the event of any change in the circumstances of the island.



It is only natural for someone to want to claim rights for what is legally theirs and GCs will continue to do this for generations, this is how they breed their children..



Use your common sense and stop talking about statistics..

yorgozlu



Joined: 16/06/2009
Posts: 4437

Message Posted:
24/10/2011 18:06

thank you for your comments Stonehousepub and erolz.



Must admit,I'm with Stonehouse's beleifs in this matter,though not saying erolz are wrong.

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
24/10/2011 18:13

In the eyes of the world, people with disputed deeds, where that disputed nature has not already been resolved because of settlements via the IPC, are not the leagl owners of the property. However the eyes of the world do not actualy control said property, the TRNC does. Regardless of the legality or morality of that it remains the reality. In the eyes of the TRNC they do own said property.



Again you 'predict' what might happen in the future, stating it as foregone fact. Not only is your assertion not foregone fact, it is also not what would have happened had the Annan Plan been accepted. You deal in speculation and present it as inevitable.



Absolutely all Cypriots who lost property as a result of the events of 74 should recieve fair redress for that loss. Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot alike. Is it possible that this can be done without non cypriots themselves being subject to loss as well ? Yes it is possible. Not only is it possible it is happening already [cont]

yorgozlu



Joined: 16/06/2009
Posts: 4437

Message Posted:
24/10/2011 18:21

erolşz

'In the eyes of the world, people with disputed deeds, where that disputed nature has not already been resolved because of settlements via the IPC, are not the leagl owners of the property. However the eyes of the world do not actualy control said property, the TRNC does.'





They sure couldn't with Orams,and god knows how many more to follow........let alone the humanity!

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
24/10/2011 18:22

To date 181 Greek Cypriots who lost property in 74 have been offered and have accepted fair redress for thier loss. In none of these cases has this resulted in loss to 2ndary post 74 owners or buyers of such property. In fact not only have they not lost, they have gained in that they bought property at a price that reflected the disputed nature of the title and now there is no longer any dispute over that title.



These are all FACTS as to what has happened to date not speculation. You ignore these facts whilst presenting your speculation that at some unkown point in the future, non cypriots owners of disputed title property in the North will be the first to loose their properties, as inevitable fact. It is not inevitable fact as you assert. It is possible that this will happend but it is not inevitable that it will. In fact all actual evidence points towards any future settlement providing redress for loss in 74 without creating new victims, cypriot or not.

Stonehousepub


Joined: 21/05/2009
Posts: 755

Message Posted:
24/10/2011 18:23

cont



A TRNC exchange title is not proof of legal ownership and outside of the TRNC it does not have any worth or meaning.



It is an illegal document drawn up by an illegal goverment and to me it is not a viable investment unless you look at it as "rent in advance" and are happy to live with the risk of losing it.



I personally am not, when I purchase a property I want a 100% guarantee that it is mine. If that guarantee is not in place... Im not interested.



This is my personal opinion.. You do not have agree with my views on this subject but I am strongly against the wrong doings of the TRNC goverment..

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
24/10/2011 18:29

Trying to discuss this with you stonehousepuib is not easy. You jump around at will, moving goalposts as suits each post. From arguing that something that clearly and demonstrably does have some value is worthless, to aruging about legality regardless of reality (ignoring de jure and de facto), to jumping ot morality and injustice, as suits. Never dealing with the points raised about each aspect, just jumping from one to another.



Regardless of what you might want to be the case and want others to believe, disputed title properties in the North are not worthless. That is just fact.



The risk of buying disputed title property because of the disputed nature of the deed, based on historical facts to date, is in the region 10 thousands times less of a risk than the risk because the systems and laws are a mess here. That is just fact.



There have since the problem was created by the events of 74 been numerous proposed plans for a solution. None of them to date have proposed a [cont]

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
24/10/2011 18:32

solution that involves non cypriot owners of disputed title being made to loose that property with no mechanism for redress for them. That is just fact.



I do not make up these historical facts. They are just what I say they are, historical facts.



Your assertions on the other hand are either plainy not true (like disputed title TRNC deed is worthless even though it clearly is not in terms of either ability to use such property or to sell it) or nothing more than speculation, like at some stage in the future non cypriot owners of disputed title will loose their property and get no redress fior such loss.

yorgozlu



Joined: 16/06/2009
Posts: 4437

Message Posted:
24/10/2011 18:36

there CANNOT be a comprimise between right and wrong.



It was wrong to sell disputed land\property to ,particularly, foreigners.The rest is just colouring up.









leave it black and white.Much more visiable.

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
24/10/2011 18:39

yorgozlu I absolutely agree that those that lost property as a result of the events of 74 should get redress for their loss. ALL such people who lost, regardless of their ethnicity or nationality. However I do not beleive, like the ECHR does not, that providing their redress should be done at the expense of creating a whole new set of people who will suffer loss as a result (the post 74 owners and those who bought such). I believe it is perfectly possible for redress to be provided to those that lost in 74 WITHOUT needing to impose unfair and unjust loss on post 74 owners. Not only do I bleieve that is possible I beleive it is the most likely possiblity in the event of a solution AND the one required if you believe in morality and justice and fair play and humanity.

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
24/10/2011 18:49

yorgozlu the world simply is not black and white. We might want it to be but it is not.



I do not think it is fair and just that someone who has bought dispute title property in the North should suffer total loss with no redress for that loss because they bought disputed title. But more importantly than what I think in terms of what the actual real world risk is that is what will happend is what bodies like the ECHR have explicitly said and what the basis has been to date for every proposed settlement plan since 74. These are the best guides to what might happen in the future and certainly better in my view than stonehousepub's predictions asserted as inevitable fact. These guides would inidcate that such purchasers will not be forced to suffer total loss with no redress in order to provide redress to those that lost in 74. Nor would such a senario be just in my view and that of the ECHR.

yorgozlu



Joined: 16/06/2009
Posts: 4437

Message Posted:
24/10/2011 18:56

erolz,

I do not dispute your views,but they are only the possibilities of what might happen in future.Which for some reason,I do not beleive we'd live long enough to see.



But in the meantime,100.000s of people(our fellow countrymen) are suffering,because WE had sold their immovables without their consent.............illegaly.

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
24/10/2011 19:01

Stonehousepub msg 103 "A TRNC exchange title is not proof of legal ownership and outside of the TRNC it does not have any worth or meaning. "



It might not have any worth or meaning to you but the REALITY is that it does define if you can actualy USE that property and sell it to another person. The pre 74 RoC deed does not allow use of that property nor can it be sold, legaly or praticaly, yet presumably you consider such a deed as having meaning and worth ?



The idea that any document drawn up by the TRNC is invalid internationaly simply because the TRNC is unrecognised is just plain wrong in fact and in international law. What makes dipsuted title deeds risky is not that they are drwan up by the TRNC but that they relate to property in dispute. Sales of non disputed property registerd and recorded by the TRNC are NOT invalid under international law.



To have a personal opinion that disputed title property in the North is not worth the risk of buying is your choise and I have [c

Turtle


Joined: 28/05/2007
Posts: 2669

Message Posted:
24/10/2011 19:02

Yorgo

You said in msg 2 "Once the crossings started in 2004 and the talks started,they thought 'oh s**t.what are we gonna do if there is a settlement aggrement?Perhaps,it's best we flog'em to foreigners (brits).Because if there is to be a settlement,those that are sold to them will no longer be our problem since they should've known better not to buy in the first place. "



Lets assume there is a settlement what will happen to all the TC's that have bought this type of property?

Not sure I understand your comments that the Brits would have a problem but not the TC's ?

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
24/10/2011 19:07

no argument with that. I would point out that there are much much greater risks than this with one with buying property in the North, because there are but your own personal view is yours and you are entitled to it. Where I do have an issue is when you state that something has no worth or value, when in fact it does. I have an issue when you assert as foregone fact that at some unkown point in the future any and all non cypriots owners of disputed title property will suffer total loss of that with no redress, when it is not only far from certain that this will happen but there is much had evidence to suggest that it will not, as far as predictions about the future can be made.



You state earlier in this thread stonehousepub that yopu have several properties in the North. I assume you are not a citizen ? You do know that legaly you can not own more than one property as a non citizen ? How does this work with your '100 % safe ownership' or nothigh philopshy I wonder ?

Hector


Joined: 26/08/2008
Posts: 2352

Message Posted:
24/10/2011 19:10

HildySmith

'A TC friend took me to the local offices and I was lead to believe that if this is the case the Kaymacumlik (not sure of the spelling) Sues the LANDOWNER.



But to do this someone has to write to the Kaymacumlik and inform the of the situation.'



What's stopping you?

yorgozlu



Joined: 16/06/2009
Posts: 4437

Message Posted:
24/10/2011 19:14

Turtle

We are safe as houses,'our government' would compensate for US..........along with turkey







....thats of course WE are still here and alive ,by then.

Turtle


Joined: 28/05/2007
Posts: 2669

Message Posted:
24/10/2011 19:33

Interesting view Yorg, not sure if thats what you believe or its said with tongue fimly in cheek

yorgozlu



Joined: 16/06/2009
Posts: 4437

Message Posted:
24/10/2011 19:42

most views are interesting Turtle,unfotunately it's the facts that we can't change.

HildySmith


Joined: 02/07/2009
Posts: 1708

Message Posted:
24/10/2011 19:58

Hector 113

Nothing now!!!!!!

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
24/10/2011 21:52

I have to say in my view this idea that what happened in 2004 was TC suddenly thought 'shit there is going to be a settlement and under the terms of that settlement I will loose any disputed title property Ihave in the North, therefore I better flog it (to some foriegner) quick' is a total misinterpretation of what actualy happened.



It was exactly BECAUSE the provisions of the Annan Plan made it clear that owners and buyers of said disputed title property that had been developed since 74 would NOT loose it, that the whole boom market in such property happened. It was the Annan plan that encouraged those with disputed title property to hurry up and do some development on it if they had not already and vastly boosted the market for such properties by saying it would be safe post a settlement, that pushed up prices and lead to a frenzy of foreign buyers that knew little or nothing of the history.



So far from it being a result of TC saying 'ooh I might loose it in a settlement' [con

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
24/10/2011 21:58

'I had better flog it' it was in fact a result of a frenzy caused by the Annan Plan saying exactly the opposite that lead to the boom. If the Annan Plan had said that current owners of disputed title property would loose it and get nothing and it would be returned to pre 74 owners post setlement, there would have been no market and no boom and no TC would have been able to sell it no matter how much they might have wanted too.



The Annan Plan said that the post 74 owners and subsequent buyers would NOT loose that land in the terms of the settlement, if it was developed post 74 and this coupled with a prospect of said land increasing greatly in value if there was a settlement is what created the boom. The amount of property being developed and marketed to foriegn buyers and its market value rose MASSIVELY as a result of the Annan Plan and the prospect of a settlment based on it, precisely because it made ushc properties 'safe' for post 74 buyers.

philbailey


Joined: 17/01/2011
Posts: 3534

Message Posted:
24/10/2011 22:04

Yorg again speaking the truth



well done

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
24/10/2011 22:16

For anyone interested a pdf version of Annan 5 , the version put to a referendum, it can be obtained here



http://www.visionmatters.co.uk/cyprus/Anan5.pdf



The sections dealing with property start on page 100 and specific articles to note relevant to this discussion are 13 and 14.



The Annan Plan created the boom exactly because it did NOT simply say if you have disputed title property you will just loose all rights to that property and have no redress for that loss post settlement.

Bradus


Joined: 25/02/2007
Posts: 2641

Message Posted:
24/10/2011 22:37

Turtle

"Not sure I understand your comments that the Brits would have a problem but not the TC's ?



I think what Yorg was saying is that any settlement will centre on the needs of the TC and GC. Many were displaced after all and it is their homeland. The needs of the foreign buyers will be easily dismissed. You bought illegal land, against the warnings of your own Government and "profited" from others suffering. The ECHR still states that the land legally belongs to the displaced GC/TC.



What a lovely cop out, to be easily used, in any future settlement.

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
24/10/2011 22:51

Bradus it is easy to assume that non cypriots will get shafted in any settlement but actualy if you look at previous proposals for a settlements and especially the Annan Plan which was to date the most detailed and comprehensive attempt to find an agreed settlement, you will actualy see that non cypriots are not to be shafted.



As to what the ECHR has said, specificaly in regard to can current users be shafted in order to redress loss of pre 74 owners here it is verbatamin



"112. This is not to say that the applicants in these cases have lost their ownership in any formal sense; the Court would eschew any notion that military occupation should be regarded as a form of adverse possession by which title can be legally transferred to the invading power. Yet it would be unrealistic to expect that as a result of these cases the Court should, or could, directly order the Turkish Government to ensure that these applicants obtain access to, and full possession of, their properties, [cont]

wynyardman



Joined: 15/12/2007
Posts: 4580

Message Posted:
24/10/2011 22:53

Hildy,



Firstly can I say that my heart bleeds for you with the issues that have come your way.



In my opinion, like many of us you acted in good faith.You relied on people purporting to be professionals!



Exchange Land. As I understand things the Turks exchanged it, but forgot to tell the Greeks.



You just may have to pay again, but values when the land was taken, which without Planning Consent



will be a nominal amount. Put it another way taken without the consent of the owner.



Fight on yours is a just cause, but in a fairly lawless envoiroment. Good luck!



wyn

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
24/10/2011 22:53

, irrespective of who is now living there or whether the property is allegedly in a militarily sensitive zone or used for vital public purposes."



and



"116. The Court must also remark that some thirty-five years after the applicants, or their predecessors in title, left their property, it would risk being arbitrary and injudicious for it to attempt to impose an obligation on the respondent State to effect restitution in all cases, or even in all cases save those in which there is material impossibility, a suggested condition put forward by the applicants and intervening Government which discounts all legal and practical difficulties barring the permanent loss or destruction of the property. It cannot agree that the respondent State should be prohibited from taking into account other considerations, in particular the position of third parties. It cannot be within this Court's task in interpreting and applying the provisions of the Convention to impose an unconditional [cont]

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
24/10/2011 22:59

obligation on a Government to embark on the forcible eviction and rehousing of potentially large numbers of men, women and children even with the aim of vindicating the rights of victims of violations of the Convention."



and



"It is evident from the Court's case-law that while restitution laws implemented to mitigate the consequences of mass infringements of property rights caused, for example, by communist regimes, may have been found to pursue a legitimate aim, the Court has stated that it is still necessary to ensure that the redress applied to those old injuries does not create disproportionate new wrongs. "



For anyone who can actualy be arsed to read the above, the idea that 'shafting' current users in order to redress the losses as a result of the events of 74 is something that the ECHR is clearly saying is not just.



The source of the above quotes can be found on the ECHR own search portal (HUDOC) by searching for 'case title' of 'Demopoulos' and respondant state of Tu

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
24/10/2011 23:01

Turkey. The ECHR search database (HUDOC) can be accessed online here



http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/search.asp?skin=hudoc-en

TRNCvictim


Joined: 17/08/2010
Posts: 1417

Message Posted:
24/10/2011 23:01

erolz



I think you are such a good supporter of the TRNC! your honesty is refreshing but any new victim must always remember:-



NO DEEDS NO MONEY!



No-one anywhere else in the world would purchase a property with NO DEEDS? apart from the ROC ? unless they want to go to court for the rest of their lives

Bradus


Joined: 25/02/2007
Posts: 2641

Message Posted:
24/10/2011 23:08

Erolz



your a star. Thanks for all your hard work. The point that I worry about is:



"obligation on a Government to embark on the forcible eviction and rehousing of potentially large numbers of men, women and children even with the aim of vindicating the rights of victims of violations of the Convention."



I am sure this will help those who would become homeless in the event of a settlement but I'm not sure what it would mean for those with holiday homes who would not be rendered homeless.

MoonageDaydre


Joined: 09/07/2011
Posts: 70

Message Posted:
24/10/2011 23:09

So what about 'TMD land' is that better or worse than Esdeger?

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
24/10/2011 23:09

So just to try and summarise the above.



Every proposed settlement to date has not simply sought to shaft and sacrafice non cypriots in order to redress cypriots for their property losses as a result of 74. Every single one. Do not take my word for it - READ THEM yourself.



The ECHR has stated explicitly and clearly that in addressing past infrigments of indivduals rights to property this should not be done in a way that causes new injuries and forces forcible eviction and rehousing of potentially large numbers of men, women and children. READ IT yourself.



Yet still this 'idea' that come a settlement all non cypriots owners of disputed property will simply be shafted, loose said property, get no redress for that loss persists, with the likes of stonehousepub asserting it as ineitiable fact and others suggesting it as the most likely outcome in the event of settlement.

Stonehousepub


Joined: 21/05/2009
Posts: 755

Message Posted:
24/10/2011 23:14

erolz



Yes I did mention that I have a few properties in the TRNC (fortunately not several), and I am Turkish cypriot so I guess that makes me a citizen.



Cannot believe you are now waffling on about the Annan plan, do you have some form of allergy against bare facts ?



You persistantly prefer to avoid the reality and continue to drown yourself in historical conspiracy theories...



Have you ever heard the TC proverb "haydan gelen huya gider" ?? What goes round will always come round and justice is always found in the end.



In the mean time we can all sit tight and hold on to our exchange deeds hoping & praying that the inevitable will never happen, I can assure you if the inevitable does happen the TRNC goverment will be first out of the back door on this one, as for Turkey paying GCs compensation, well thats one big joke in itself !!



Wake up and smell the coffee

Danboy


Joined: 28/05/2011
Posts: 114

Message Posted:
24/10/2011 23:17

thats mean a greek property

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
24/10/2011 23:18

TRNCvictim I am a supporter of the truth.



MoonageDaydre 'TMD' title is less safe than 'exchange title' because with TMD there is no balancing value of property in the South. Again if you look at the proposals in the Annan Plan, all the principal protections given to 'current users' (be they cypriot or non cypriots who bought from cypriots) in the face of claims from pre74 owners, relate to this 'balancing' property in one way or another. With TMD there is no such 'balancing' property.



Bradus I am not saying there will be no implcations for those with 'disputed' title if and when a settlement is agreed. I am saying this idea that it is certain that non cypriots will all just be shafted and loose everything and have no redress for that loss is just not supported by the evidence in previous solution proposals or in the utterance of the ECHR. If the ECHR had said, current owners have bought stolen property, they have no rights, then things would be different, but they have NOT said

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
24/10/2011 23:26

Stonehousepub I am dealing in facts, and not speculation like yourself.



If you wish to look at what might happen in any future settlment you can just make it up as you go along choosing a senario that best represents your own prejudices and beliefs or you can look at previous attempts at settlements and see what they said about property issues and try and understand why they said that. That is why the Annan Plan has some relevance.



This is nothing to do with conspiracy theories. It is to do with taking an objective view based on actual evidence in order to make informed speculations about the future and accepting patent realites as they exist.



As for Turkey paying GC compensation, that is another FACT, which you just choose to dismiss because it does not fit your world view. Turkey has paid GBP 58,614,200 to date via the IPC alone. It has paid several million more in cases that predate the IPC as well. These are facts.

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
24/10/2011 23:32

The latest stats on the IPC can be found here



http://www.kuzeykibristmk.org/english/index.html



"As of 24 October 2011, 2152 applications have been lodged with the Commission and 181 of them have been concluded through friendly settlements and 7 through formal hearing. The Commission has paid GBP 58,614,200.- to the applicants as compensation. Moreover, it has ruled for exchange and compensation in two cases, for restitution in one case and for restitution and compensation in five cases. In one case it has delivered a decision for restitution after the settlement of Cyprus Issue, and in one case it has ruled for partial restitution."



The IPC is REAL. For every case it settles, one more property in the North that was previously 'disputed title' is now 'safe' title. These also are FACTS, unlike you assertions as to what is 'inevitable'.

TRNCvictim


Joined: 17/08/2010
Posts: 1417

Message Posted:
24/10/2011 23:39

The FACTS are:-



NO-ONE can dispute Land title is a minefield! which could blow up in your face at any time?

wynyardman



Joined: 15/12/2007
Posts: 4580

Message Posted:
24/10/2011 23:53

Please see thread.........





Is your property 100% safe even IF YOU HAVE YOUR KOCHAN?



wyn

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
25/10/2011 00:08

No wynyardman, if you have property that is on a DISPUTED title, then there is a risk involved and it is not 100% safe, because guess what the title in question that you have is DISPUTED by another person who claims ownership of the same property.



As to what the actual risk is, try reading this thread. If all you want to do is be able to say it is not 100% safe, then any disputed title deed is not 100% safe because it is disputed. It will only become 100% safe when that dipsute is resolved, as any property that has been subject to a settlment via the IPC now is for example.



Seriously is this reality actualy NEWS to anyone ?



I am still amazed that people talk about something that to date in 35+ years that such disputed title deeds have existed only ONE purchaser has lost because of its disputed nature and yet maybe 10,000 people have lost up to everything for DIFFERENT reasons. Surely the second should be more of a worry and discussion point ? Or am I mad ?

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
25/10/2011 00:11

TRNCvictim, buying property in the TRNC, both disputed title property and non disputed title property, is a minefield, even more so for non citizens than citizens, with thousands, possibly as high as 15,000 such buyers, citizen and non citizen, suffering significant loss as a result. The problems that all but one of these thousands have suffered from are in fact nothing to do with the disputed nature of the title.

wynyardman



Joined: 15/12/2007
Posts: 4580

Message Posted:
25/10/2011 00:21

erolz,



I think we are singing from the same hymnsheet.



I posted my thread because of concern that people with Kocans on Exchange Land were deluded to the



extent that they were leading potential purchasers into a false sense of security. Your property IS NOT safe



even with a kochan if it is on Exchange Land.



The freehold should be determined by talks seeking to resolve The Cyprus Problem.



wyn

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
25/10/2011 00:35

In my opinion, speculating but doing so based on actual relevant historic evidence I would guestimate



The chance that someone with exchange deeds in the North will, loose everything with no redress for that loss at all as a result of an agreed settlement is near to zero, in the region of 1 in 100,000 chance lower.



The chance that somone with exchange deeds in the North will suffer some loss but not total as a result of an agreed settlement is at a wild guess 50/50 or 1 in 2. It is also possible that for some the partial loss is offset by the increase in value that not having disputed title deeds would bring as well as the increase in values that would accure from the property no longer being in a non recognised state.



The chance that someone with exchange deeds suffers no loss as a result of an agreed settlement is again at a gues 50/50 or 1 in 2. They would gain from having non disputed deeds in a recognised country post settlement.



All just guesses and speculation in rea

HildySmith


Joined: 02/07/2009
Posts: 1708

Message Posted:
25/10/2011 00:44

Beware of wolves in sheeps clothiing

- so the old saying goes. I have learn a lot more?



Beware of Advocates with fork tongues

Beware of Landowners with devious methods to get above the law

Beware of men of status who can manipulate and charm others

Beware of paperwork with ink on it - the ink means nothing, the paper is worth more

Beware of Advocates whose wives think they know the job better and lie to prove it

Beware of dreaming that your dream will become a reality

HildySmith


Joined: 02/07/2009
Posts: 1708

Message Posted:
25/10/2011 10:28

How many more TRNC victims will there be before something is done.

One thing I do know now, thanks to the contributions on here, is that IF I were to buy here now (which I wouldn't) I would not buy on 'exchange land'

It may sound cynical to say this but it appears that TC's like Hasan Sungur who have thousands of donums of land, need to unload it onto unsuspecting 'incomers/expats' before a political settlement as their land could be worthless if claimed by a Greek and then have to pay the Greek compensation. It they unload it then the 'incomers/expats' are the ones who pay the compensation.

THE MORAL OF THIS STORY:

D O N O T B U Y O N E X C H A N G E L A N D ! ! ! ! ! ! !

HildySmith


Joined: 02/07/2009
Posts: 1708

Message Posted:
25/10/2011 11:00

it would appear that 'space' typing does not work on here:

DO----NOT----BUY----0N----EXCHANCE-----LAND



I have also been told that there is no guarantee that the Greeks in the south have accepted the 'exchange' and my still see the land here as theres as they do not want the land in the south



AS SOMEONE RECENTLY SAID:

------------------------------------------------BUYER BEWARE!!!!!

---------------------------------------------You have been WARNED

ilovecyprus


Joined: 08/05/2007
Posts: 2880

Message Posted:
25/10/2011 11:39

Of course, it can easily be said that Cypriots will look after themselves if an agreement is ever reached (I can understand why people say this), however a settlement is being put together under the piercing gaze of the UN and if they succeed (a big if) it will be announced to the whole world, putting Cyprus (with ban ki -Moon looking over their shoulder), for once, firmly in the spotlight.



In these days of equality for all Cyprus will leave itself open to international criticism if it did not achieve a mature settlement, taking the needs of all parties in to consideration. The UN, being the body it is, it will expect this.



To achieve credibility (so it was not undermined) it would almost certainly have to be a solution that matches the high minded morality of the ECHR.



There would be a lot of exposure if 20,000 Brits and an innumerable number of settlers are left high and dry. I wonder if the Cypriots are prepared to take the flak.

HildySmith


Joined: 02/07/2009
Posts: 1708

Message Posted:
25/10/2011 12:06

I fully agree.

HOWEVER:

There are an awful lot of IF's and BUTs in the scenario.



Easier to off-load the land onto unsuspecting 'incomers/expats' and have the money in the bank - no ifs and buts for them.

Unscrupulous Advocates, Landowners and Constructors ARE STILL OUT THERE, even now conning unsuspecting 'incomers/expats' as a meal ticket.

My house has been built:

- On exchange land (which I was told was 'safe and secure')

- With no Build Permit

- With sub standard methods which do not meet TRNC build standards (Supposed to be earthquake proof - it did not stand up to the wet winter in 2009)

- With no contract registration because the landowner REFUSED to sign the contract (which meant the Land Registry office would not register the contract)

- Via a contract issued by my Advocate Sener Law Firm which leaves me in an impossible position (even the judge in the court stated that the Advocate should also be in the court!!

ilovecyprus


Joined: 08/05/2007
Posts: 2880

Message Posted:
25/10/2011 12:28

msge 147





"There are an awful lot of IF's and BUTs in the scenario. "



There has to be as there is no clear path. Nobody can predict the outcome of the talks. There are just too many variables. We can only speculate.



I am very very sorry to hear about your situation. Its an absolute nightmare. The NC politician Rasit Pertev described Cyprus as being closer to an African state than a Western one. It has a lot of maturing to do. Nial Ferguson the historian states clearly that a country is unlikely to achieve maturity until it secures property rights and enforces the rule of law.

Unfortunately NC is unlikely to achieve this maturity until there is a solution. Until then it will continue to operate like the wild west. There is no accountability to anybody just nepotism. We have to recognise that this is not the TC's fault. They have been let down badly by the International community and are isolated.



I know this does not help you. Good luck in getting it resolved

zcacmxi


Joined: 30/11/2008
Posts: 388

Message Posted:
25/10/2011 12:31

Although this discussion is about exchange land, I note comments above stating that "original-title Turkish" land is safest of all.



The reality is that whether you are buying ex-GC or ex-TC property, the sale is being registered in the Land Registry in the TRNC. If all that the TRNC is doing is wrong and is unrecognised in the world, and all that the ROC government in the South does is legally valid and undisputed, then if you buy "ex-TC" property, "Turkish Title" as it is sometimes called, who is actually registering it in the South?



According to the records in the South, property in the North has not legally changed hands in the North since 1974. If you bought off a Turkish Cypriot who changes his mind, he can claim he was "duped" by the authorities in the North and have the transfer in the North declared null & void.. This may be because he/she changes his mind, wants more money, discovers it's worth more, finds out that the one he kept is GC and wants the TC one back, etc..

HildySmith


Joined: 02/07/2009
Posts: 1708

Message Posted:
25/10/2011 12:36

I agree it is not the TC's fault in general. But here are unscrupulous TC who are making a killing buy using these methods to line their pockets.

when I talke to TC's about his they are disgusted and have even said that they are ashamed of their people for doing this.

zcacmxi


Joined: 30/11/2008
Posts: 388

Message Posted:
25/10/2011 12:50

My family abandoned all their original property/livelihoods in Paphos in the 60s and moved to Limasol for a few years due to risk to life. Then in 1974, they were transported to the safety of the North aided by the UN...



What were they meant to be doing for the past 40 years in the North? They could have been living in "rented" GC property in the North, but for an economy to develop ownership is required, otherwise you will not develop or improve it or invest in it.



It seems to me that the TCs made the North their home with the help of Turkey. The rest of the world/EU do not recognise that. So therefore they live in an unrecognised state for 40 years, nothing has changed for the past 40 years. The World/EU still recognise the South ROC only, even though the North accepted the Annan Plan and they didn't. That's the new "Cyprus Problem". No change.



Some like me were born in to it, others bought into it. There is no certainty, and no sympathy from the World or EU. You just live w

ilovecyprus


Joined: 08/05/2007
Posts: 2880

Message Posted:
25/10/2011 12:53

msge 150



HildySmith, not ashamed or disgusted enough to do anything about it. They accept the way it is.



Ask these TC's if they would join you and other Brits in putting pressure on their government.

girne 29


Joined: 06/12/2007
Posts: 1488

Message Posted:
25/10/2011 12:55

Yorgu

message 2 . Brilliant, Your post should be compulsory reading in every estate agents blurb when it comes to their explanation of the the three types of deeds.





I am one of the Brits who took advantage of the refugee situation to buy cheap, but at least I had the good sense to recognise that was I was doing was not right and expected to pay a penalty ( a fine) somewhere down the line. I fully expect if there is agreement ,to pay a substantial compensation payment for TRNC title. Call it exploitation tax. I do not expect ,like most ,for the Turkish Cypriot/Turkish taxpayer to pay one penny of my compensation .

zcacmxi


Joined: 30/11/2008
Posts: 388

Message Posted:
25/10/2011 12:57

PS. With regard to the TRNC government and the TC people. My thoughts:



You have a government, organisation, people & political system that is not recognised by the entire World for 40 years. Some would say abandoned or forgotten. Most if not al /99% of international aid has gone to the south ROC for the past 40 years.



The North has had to trade and communicate with Turkey only. They live on handouts from Turkey, and wait for Turkish Relief Committee to send them money and help with development projects.



Under the circumstances, with no international assistance, scrutiny, it's not surprising to me that not everything is perfect. What's their benchmark? What are they working towards? An entire generation unrecognised.



If the North was recognised or if there was some sort of settlement and there was more outside involvement, things may have been different.

Brinsley


Joined: 04/04/2009
Posts: 6858

Message Posted:
25/10/2011 13:05

I wonder who owns and of which nationality the land Larnaca Airport is built on, belongs too? (rhetorical)!



Richard

ilovecyprus


Joined: 08/05/2007
Posts: 2880

Message Posted:
25/10/2011 13:09

msge 151



"for an economy to develop ownership is required"



Property development is not the only way to develop an economy, however I agree, as the TC's had very little means to develop an economy property became a viable source. Some suggest that the TC's should not have sold the land, but how was the TC ever going to develop and to have some form of autonomy. Like every other country they have the right to a better standard of living. Unfortunately though the unscrupulous have made a mess of it and the rest of the TC's are fatalistic about their future.



I asked my TC neighbour why the TC's and settlers put up with so much rubbish and contribute to it. My neighbour said that is probably because TC's think that one day they will have to give it back to the Greeks. Why should we take pride in something that we don't really fully feel is ours.

ilovecyprus


Joined: 08/05/2007
Posts: 2880

Message Posted:
25/10/2011 13:11

msge 154



"Under the circumstances, with no international assistance, scrutiny, it's not surprising to me that not everything is perfect. What's their benchmark? What are they working towards? An entire generation unrecognised"



Totally agree

Cobbler


Joined: 15/11/2009
Posts: 61

Message Posted:
25/10/2011 13:46

A Greek told me that if the Turkish Cypriots gave back part of the north to the Greek Cypriots, they were less thanm 20% of the population but hold 40% of the island, then the problem would have been solved years ago and they would be recognised. Why don't they give Famagusta back for a start, keeping it empty is just being mean and spiteful.

Honeybee


Joined: 09/09/2011
Posts: 39

Message Posted:
25/10/2011 13:51

Message 151





What were they meant to be doing for the past 40 years in the North? They could have been living in "rented" GC property in the North, but for an economy to develop ownership is required, otherwise you will not develop or improve it or invest in it.



Yes i agree, but surely there are ways of going about this, DO NOT rob decent people of their life savings in the process. There is a lot of talk about 'Brit's jumping on the bandwagon of cheap properties etc, but what about all revenue they bring to local business etc, this surely contributes to the economy!!!

ilovecyprus


Joined: 08/05/2007
Posts: 2880

Message Posted:
25/10/2011 13:57

Msge 158



Cobbler



I assume you are referring to Maras/Varosha. Not sure it is right to say 'mean and spiteful'. In any negotiation you need to get something in return. Good will gestures can be helpful, however you have to be careful you are not taken advantage of. In return for Maras the TC's may ask for a Turkish guarantee to be kept in place, something the the GC's are not keen to do.

In any case, the TC's were willing to give up Varosha, Famagusta and Guzelyert as part of the Annan Plan. This was rejected by the GC's which means that the GC's consider something else more important than just the return of land.

Cobbler


Joined: 15/11/2009
Posts: 61

Message Posted:
25/10/2011 14:02

160. Why should any country gaurntee another, where else in the world does one country have the legal right to intervene in another, why is Cyprus different from Kenya, Nigeria, Ghana Singapore etc.

ilovecyprus


Joined: 08/05/2007
Posts: 2880

Message Posted:
25/10/2011 14:25

msge 161



I have not said it is right or wrong. It does suggest though that the majority TC's (not all) don't fully trust the GC's. For if they did they would not make such a claim.

ilovecyprus


Joined: 08/05/2007
Posts: 2880

Message Posted:
25/10/2011 14:29

msge 158



By the way if we want to talk about mean and spiteful. Not allowing TC's to compete in sporting events doesn't come any meaner nor spiteful than this. This is not exactly trust inducing.

zcacmxi


Joined: 30/11/2008
Posts: 388

Message Posted:
25/10/2011 18:01

msg 158, Cobbler: "A Greek told me that if the Turkish Cypriots gave back part of the north to the Greek Cypriots, they were less thanm 20% of the population but hold 40% of the island, then the problem would have been solved years ago and they would be recognised. Why don't they give Famagusta back for a start, keeping it empty is just being mean and spiteful. "



In the Internationally sponsored "UN/Annan Plan", the Turkish Cypriot State were to return part of the land in the North to the Greek Cypriot State.



65% of the TCs voted for it.

75% of the GCs rejected it.



To be honest, if I were GC I'd have voted NO too.. What have they lost? Nothing, they got in to the EU as the Republic of Cyprus representing the entire island? What did they lose? Nothing. Why would they vote for a plan to legitimise the North and give the TCs anything? They'll hold out for it all.

Lemtich



Joined: 15/02/2007
Posts: 1487

Message Posted:
25/10/2011 21:07

Has anyone actually visited the Land Registry Office in the ROC to see who the land they now live on is registered to? Would they actually entertain such a request about property in the "Occupied Terrritories"? If the land is registered to a GC, how would one find them after more than 37 years or probably more to ask if the land could be purchased from them? Can one trust the Land Registry entries about property in the TRNC made since 1974?

yorgozlu



Joined: 16/06/2009
Posts: 4437

Message Posted:
25/10/2011 22:35

zcacmxi-msg 164



'To be honest, if I were GC I'd have voted NO too..'





I would've,too.

HildySmith


Joined: 02/07/2009
Posts: 1708

Message Posted:
26/10/2011 03:50

Some very interesting comments, many of which I agree with.

I have read all the books I could get and recognise the Guarantee agreement between the USA, UK and Turkey.

There is a document which is a record from an Athens court which states that Turkey was right to intervene under that agreement and that the guilty parties were the Greek Officers/military who were carrying out the Genocide who were guilty (or words to that affect)

Turkey did not invade - it intervened to prevent ethnic cleansing/Genocide.

I have written to my MP and to David Cameron regarding the way the TC's are treat internatinally. I have also challenged statements made by Greek Cypriots on facebook which are totally unrealistic propaganda which they have been brough up to believe as the truth by their schools and churches - read 'Trapped in the Green Line' written by a Greek Cypriot. His visit north demonstrates the reaction when they dicover the truth - wiping out of 3 villages, 1 with a 16 day old baby.

yorgozlu



Joined: 16/06/2009
Posts: 4437

Message Posted:
26/10/2011 08:27

HildySmith



As wrong as those things were for taking place,is what turkey's been doing since 1974 right,by accupying?



not to forget to mention the fact that books do not always reflect to truth.Both sides have killed many of their own and made it look like it was other 'side',for the sake of our so called leaders ego.Those are the ones still alive because of the crimes they had taken on by using the innocent...........





R.I.P.

HildySmith


Joined: 02/07/2009
Posts: 1708

Message Posted:
26/10/2011 10:14

the book Trapped in the Green Line was written by a Greek Cypriot Tony Angastiniotis. He is a freelance photojournalist.

About the author states: 'Being an ex-nationalist himself he tries to bring to light some hidden truths that saved his soul from extreme nationalism.'

When the borders opened he decided to come back north and what happened changed his life. His father had been a Doctor in Famagusta and he managed to drive to his former home even though he had only been 8 years old when they fled. He knocked on the door and was met by 2 old ladies who invited him in. When he entered the house he found his father's dipomas and certificates still hanging on the wall. When he asked why? they told him that this was not their house, their house was in Paphos, they had just borrowed it. He asked himself, are these the barbarians I have been taught about????????

There is a documentary DVD with the book, and on youtube which he produced called: "Voice of Blood"

HildySmith


Joined: 02/07/2009
Posts: 1708

Message Posted:
26/10/2011 13:27

As someone recently said

2 wrongs do not make it right.

Some people in the UK who are still living lost property in World War 2 and then they come over here and lose property again.

HildySmith


Joined: 02/07/2009
Posts: 1708

Message Posted:
26/10/2011 19:30

If there is a settlement on the island - that will mean that lots of brits will find themselves facing compensation claims from the GC.s because the TC Advocates did not informed them of the real situation.

yorgozlu



Joined: 16/06/2009
Posts: 4437

Message Posted:
26/10/2011 19:39

......but the british government did.

HildySmith


Joined: 02/07/2009
Posts: 1708

Message Posted:
26/10/2011 21:44

It also means that the TC can also go to the South and claim his land/compensation even though he has sold on the land he had here

Is that possible, have I got that right?

yorgozlu



Joined: 16/06/2009
Posts: 4437

Message Posted:
26/10/2011 23:27

HildySmith

Why shouldn'they?TRNC is not recognised after all,therefore all 'given' to them in the accupied parts are internationally not void.





ps.got a funny feeling I had written this long before..........on this forum.

HildySmith


Joined: 02/07/2009
Posts: 1708

Message Posted:
27/10/2011 00:37

Its a win-win situation for them then?

Sell the exchanged land and leave the buyer to pay the GC the compensation and then claim their own land back - who was it that had the catchprase

'nice little earner' !!!!!!

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
27/10/2011 01:10

I am sorry but there are so many misconceptions in the above posts 171 to 175.



If you want an informed 'insight' into what might happen with regards to disputed title property in the north as part of an agreed settlement then you have to look at the Annan Plan. Whilst this is no guarantee of what might be in a future settlement, it does show what was in the most detailed one ever drawn up and overseen by the UN and with many parts 'filled in' by the UN, drawing of experts from around the world. In short it is a much better guide to what might happen than just speculation based on indivduals assumptions and misunderstandings.



Please read it.



Yorg the idea that a TC could take pre 74 GC land in 'exchange' for their land in the south, sell this pre 74 GC land in the north to someone and still have a valid claim on the land they lost in the south is just nonsense. The RoC would not allow this nor would it be considered legal internationaly. [cont]

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
27/10/2011 01:17

This 'double dipping' as it is called is both a valid concern for the RoC and an excuse they have used and still use to a degree to deny TC who have NOT taken any land in exchange rights to redress for their loss.



If as a TC you were to try and reclaim loss land in the south and it were shown that post 74 you had also taken exchange land in the North and either still owned it or had sold it, you would not be allowed to claim your land back in the South by the RoC nor would any internaional body support you claim on it either.



You could try and LIE about having got land in exchange for your lost land in the south but to do so would simply be an attempted fraud.



This notion that a TC can take exchange land, sell it and then claim back their original land in the SOuth is just not true. They can NOT do this. If you look at the Annan Plan, both the rights and obligations on those TC who took exhcange land pass to anyone they might have subsequently sold it to. [cont]

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
27/10/2011 01:22

The idea that the obligations passed to the person it was sold to , but any rights to the land it was exchanged for, is just not in the Annan Plan and for obvious and good reason. It would be a total traversty of justice and fairness if this was the case.



It is not the case now, a TC who has taken exchange land, sold it and then tried to claim their pre 74 land in the south from the RoC would NOT sucseed. Not in the RoC courts and not in international courts. Nor was it the way the Annan Plan worked. The chance that it will become the case in any future settlement are next ot zero and if any settlement did allow for it to happen, it would be challenged and overturned in international courts.



Again please do get rid of this notion that simply because the TRNC is not recongised internationaly, then anything it does, any paper it issues is therefore not valid internationaly. This is just NOT TRUE. Some things it does will not be reconginsed interantional as legaly valid but [cont]

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
27/10/2011 01:28

valid but other ARE considered valid under international law. This might seem strange and counter intuitive but it is just the reality. The principle that some things 'done' by non recognised states can have leagl force internationaly is a well defined and well established part of international law, with countless precedents in countless cases, national and international. It is called the 'namiba excpetion'. It is based on the idea that non recognition's purpose is to 'punish' the STATE and it should not be used to punish indivduals unfairly simply because they live in a non recoignised state. Thus birth certificates issued by non recognised states DO have legal validity internationaly, because to deny they did would be to unfairly punish indivduals who happened to be born in a non recognised state and the is NOT the purpsoe or point of non recognistion of states. Birth certificates are just one example, there are others.

HildySmith


Joined: 02/07/2009
Posts: 1708

Message Posted:
27/10/2011 09:41

As my villa is built on limited space (nowhere near the size on the plans) the hilside behind it is also part of Hasan Sungur's exchange land.

As this land has now come down onto our properties and has caused severe damage due to no retaining wall, is he not responsible for what happens on HIS exchange land.

HildySmith


Joined: 02/07/2009
Posts: 1708

Message Posted:
27/10/2011 18:47

Is he liable for the damage caused to our villas by his land/earth?

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
27/10/2011 18:54

HildySmith I hate to be so blunt but the legal reality is you do not own a villa or land. What you have paid for is a contract with the builder, essentialy a promise or comittment from them to deliver you a house on a plot of land, on land that is currently owned by someone else. That the builder has failed to deliver on that contract / promise / pledge does not mean you own the house or the land.



So no I do not think that 'he' is libale for damage caused to 'your' villa, because it is not 'your' villa, at least legaly - as I understand things, which may be wrong.

HildySmith


Joined: 02/07/2009
Posts: 1708

Message Posted:
27/10/2011 19:02

Thank you erolz

That is what I thought but hoped it was not the case.

HildySmith


Joined: 02/07/2009
Posts: 1708

Message Posted:
27/10/2011 22:48

So Hasan Sungur's land - which he failed to secure or ensure that it was secured, a result of rain storms (WATER - thought they were supposed to be earthquake proof)

falls down onto houses which were being built by Hasan Sungur's Contracted Builder for each of the 7 British buyers,

who have paid up to £90k plus, which totals approximately £560,000.00 (over 1/2 a million £)

and there is NOTHING that they can do.



Yet Pauline Reed and Pembe say HE IS THE VICTIM!!!!!!!



Why did he contract with an unregistered builder who had/has a very bad reputation on the island for leaving unfinished sub standard empty houses (I know I was fool enought to rent one) when he has his own construction company?

HildySmith


Joined: 02/07/2009
Posts: 1708

Message Posted:
27/10/2011 22:58

http://www.hri.org/news/cyprus/tcpr/2011/11-10-26.tcpr.html#04



Don't know if this copied link from Newlad on another posting will work.



But this article makes the situation with exhange land more relevant - if unification/agreement/whatever, takes place they may have difficulty getting rid of their exchanged land before the Greek Cypriots come back for it.

HildySmith


Joined: 02/07/2009
Posts: 1708

Message Posted:
28/10/2011 09:45

Whilst sitting outside the courts on my first appearance with Hasan Sungur he told me that If I made a settlement, with the deal being near with the Greeks, I would get my house and that it is worth a lot more than the original price of 5 years ago. (I would have preferred to have been living in it for 4 years but that did not seem to count.)

He said I could sell it for a lot more money. He did not say that he would be unloading exchange land which he would likely loose and/or have to pay compensation for it.

He is only interested in one thing and that is that WE pay for HIS exchange land.

HildySmith


Joined: 02/07/2009
Posts: 1708

Message Posted:
28/10/2011 16:06

He has lost nothing I have lost £90k plus



- Yes his family lost property in the south/north conflict -



IS THAT MY FAULT - Am I responsible



Is it me who has to make it up to him



It would appear by what has been said on this forum:



The GC's screwed the TC's so it is OK for the TC's to screw the Brits to get back their rights



THAT CANNOT BE RIGHT !!!! - NOR should it be allowed to continue

yorgozlu



Joined: 16/06/2009
Posts: 4437

Message Posted:
28/10/2011 23:31

erolz



I'm aware of all that,but we can't deny the fact that 'double dipping' has taken place and still could take place for the simple reason of trnc not being recognised.

I've certainly met a few whom rather 'proudly' boast about it. :(

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
29/10/2011 00:03

Only a tiny minority of TC have got redress from the RoC for their loss of property as a result of 74, be it resitution, compensation or exchange. I am not aware that it has been shown that a single one of this tiny monority that has managed to secure redress from the RoC to date also has exchange land in the North or had it and sold it. There may be cases of this but if there were they would be massive headline news, at least in the RoC.

HildySmith


Joined: 02/07/2009
Posts: 1708

Message Posted:
29/10/2011 09:54

It may be a tiny minority but so are the brits so in their case if is the majority who are being treat this way.

HildySmith


Joined: 02/07/2009
Posts: 1708

Message Posted:
29/10/2011 11:09

We have come here with the best of intentions so why are they doing this. The brits are putting a lot into the TRNC economy

philbailey


Joined: 17/01/2011
Posts: 3534

Message Posted:
29/10/2011 15:50

Moral seems to be don,t buy

exchange land

it will not belong to you?

HildySmith


Joined: 02/07/2009
Posts: 1708

Message Posted:
29/10/2011 16:26

I agree!!

You will be sitting waiting for the GC's to come and collect their compensation or demand their land back.

HildySmith


Joined: 02/07/2009
Posts: 1708

Message Posted:
29/10/2011 17:06

Is it not true that the (Turkish) Cypriots were the minority in 1974. It is we brits who are the minority now.

CyprusNow


Joined: 16/07/2011
Posts: 168

Message Posted:
29/10/2011 17:14

Hildy Smith



Truly astonishing isn't it that your bought land without even knowing what it was and what the implications were. You deserve everything you get.

HildySmith


Joined: 02/07/2009
Posts: 1708

Message Posted:
29/10/2011 18:01

Mr Sungur concluded by saying that the prices of the real property with Turkish Cypriot title deeds have increased and on the other hand they cannot find buyers for the real property which belongs to the Greek Cypriots.

mmmmmmmmm. I don't think it is only the Oram's case which is the problem Mr Sungur.

CyprusNow


Joined: 16/07/2011
Posts: 168

Message Posted:
29/10/2011 18:04