There?s a car park where our apartment is supposed to be

Not happy with Off The Plan

There?s a car park where our apartment is supposed to be

ISN?T that a car park where our courtyard is meant to be?
That was the question Melanie and Andrew Bowring were left asking in January this year as they peered into the building site of the Lane Cove unit complex they had bought into off the plan more than 18 months earlier.

They were about to discover the developers, Landmark Group Australia Pty Limited and Mindarie Street Pty Limited, had deleted their ground-floor apartment from the project without telling them

The Bowrings? lifesavings had been tied up for nothing ? in June, 2012, the couple signed a contract and paid a 5 per cent deposit of $37,500 on the unit, priced at $750,000.
Then, in September last year, they paid nearly $30,000 in stamp duty.

?We feel like they have taken our dreams away from us, as well as any chance of getting into the Sydney property market,? Mrs Bowring told me.

When they asked what was going on, lawyers for the *developer Arash Tavakoli said that, due to ?poor amenity for the lot? such as ?south-facing windows? and ?no cross-ventilation? as well as ?health risks to occupants? ? defined as mould ? ?our client in discussion with our client?s consultants, considered that the area is best used for car *spaces and storage bays?.

?Our client considered it necessary to vary the development consent to omit the subject lot,? the lawyers added.

Continues...

Public Defender went to its listed office, Suite 2201 of Westfield Tower Two, Bondi Junction, seeking answers. But there were no answers ? and no office.

It was a ?virtual office? ? for as little as $232 per month Servcorp provides clients with a ?prestigious corporate address for your business cards? and a shared receptionist who answers the phone in the company name.
The receptionist called Landmark director Arash Tavakoli (pictured) and told him I was there. The receptionist asked for my card and said Mr Tavakoli wasn?t ?in the suburb today?.
 
Wow. I can't imagine the contract for OTP would ever be in the purchaser's favour. Why sign up to something you have so little control over?

BR
 
Wow. I can't imagine the contract for OTP would ever be in the purchaser's favour. Why sign up to something you have so little control over?

BR

How about a evenly balanced contract?

And before you say "well they should have got their lawyer to read over it", yes that's true, but its a very overwhelming and frustrating process

I read my credit card terms and conditions and tried to claim extended warranty a few years ago, technically I was wrong, but it was so ridiculous and illogical after going to the ombudsman, they caved in.

Basically, I bought two sets of cordless phones on special, I gave one to my brother, and his one broke down, they initially refused the claim because I gave it another party, now how unreasonable is that!!! Apparently a products reliability changes if you give it to someone
 
Last edited:
TMNT,

I agree with everything you say. OTP is so complex and difficult to understand, which is why I wouldn't go near it. The contract is written by the developer, so it will be in their favour. If the purchaser doesn't like it, they can walk and the developer will find someone else to take them up on their terms.

BR
 
So did these guys lose their apartment or lose a courtyard that their apartment was meant to open up into?

"There?s a car park where our apartment is supposed to be"
"ISN?T that a car park where our courtyard is meant to be?"
 
So did these guys lose their apartment or lose a courtyard that their apartment was meant to open up into?

"There?s a car park where our apartment is supposed to be"
"ISN?T that a car park where our courtyard is meant to be?"

From what i saw of the program - their apartment was supposed to be on the ground floor of one of three small high rises. Instead of an apartment it was all bricked up and made into an undercover carpark area. If it was going to be their apartment it didn't look like a good spot, the driveway to the other apartment blocks ran right past it sloping up and blocking most of the potential apartment at the front - thats one of the reasons the apartment got scrapped. Poor planning i guess.
 
How about a evenly balanced contract?

And before you say "well they should have got their lawyer to read over it", yes that's true, but its a very overwhelming and frustrating process

The reality is that the service provider generates the contract and it's never in favor of the buyer. We've put together a contract that we've got for some consultants. As much as I want to be fair an balanced, I'm assuming a lot of risk and thus the contract reflects this risk. It's not really to make money in the event that things go bad, but to reduce the risk of their misconduct.
 
Interesting that they were offered another 3 bedroom apartment in the complex which was worth $230k more and they declined it.

Though I suppose with young kids they wanted one with a courtyard and perhaps the other didn't have one.
 
They were offered that more expensive apartment. At the same price?

It sucks, but it's happened. With money back, upgraded apartment, what DO they want?
 
OMG! It could have been us. We (I and my wife) almost booked a 2 bedroom apartment with courtyard. I was going to pay the deposit, as my wife liked it, but then read through all the issues with OTPs on SS and backed out. Scary stuff..
 
Interesting that they were offered another 3 bedroom apartment in the complex which was worth $230k more and they declined it.

Though I suppose with young kids they wanted one with a courtyard and perhaps the other didn't have one.

I was trying to figure out what the journalist was trying to imply... its really badly worded. Journalist these days suck at writing.

The lawyers said Mr Tav-akoli was “prepared to *refund” the deposit, interest and legal costs.
But that is not acceptable to the Bowrings. Nor is a later offer of a different three bedroom unit, which they say is nearly $230,000 more than the omitted apartment.
“We don’t want to be greedy ... we just want what is fair,” Mrs Bowring said..

Were they offered a 3 bedroom apartment but were required to pay an extra $230k?

Or were they offered the 3 bedroom apartment which the developer says is worth $230k more (but they weren't required to pay extra funds)?
 
Last edited:
I was trying to figure out what the journalist was trying to imply... its really badly worded. Journalist these days suck at writing.

Were they offered a 3 bedroom apartment but were required to pay an extra $230k?

Or were they offered the 3 bedroom apartment which the developer says is worth $230k more (but they weren't required to pay extra funds)?

I read it as they were offered a 3 bedroom apartment, but were required to pay an extra $230k :confused:
 
They were offered the penthouse apartment, but it was an extra $230K because house prices have gone up/ it was a penthouse. They cant afford it and they have children so it wasn't practical. They were also offered their initial deposit back with interest.
 
Is that how you read this article? Or is there another article.
I would be interesting in understanding this further (in case i ever find myself in this position). :)
 
Back
Top