[Misc] Utterly disgraceful

[essbee1]

Greed, greed, greed.......everything that typifies the UK in 2021. I contributed to the fund to allow the stables
to stay in Teddington, as did thousands of others and now a greedy ******* landlord is asking for more.

https://www.parklanestables.co.uk/news/blog-post-title-one-73ata-f4h7s-z435a

 

[Cowfold Seagull]

A sign of the times it would seem. I am having a not disimilar problem involving my cancelled holiday with tui, but that's a whole other story.

 

[West Hoathly Seagull]

I hope they can find a permanent home, and I am happy to contribute if they do. Do PM me in that case. Meanwhile, I hope it rebounds on the landlord, via adverse publicity, etc.

In East Grinstead, we had a very useful sewing, etc, supplies shop. Mum used to buy thread and other things there. A few years back, they announced that they were closing, as their rent had been raised massively. The landlord signed a deal for Cote Brasserie to open on the site. Cote then decided that they weren't going to open branches in towns under a certain population size, so they pulled out. The shop sat empty for a year, meaning the silly idiot didn't get any rent for that time. There is now a fine dining restaurant operating there, but they were shut down during the lockdown, so probably had to ask for a rent rebate.

 

[rippleman]

Greed, greed, greed.......everything that typifies the UK in 2021. I contributed to the fund to allow the stables
to stay in Teddington, as did thousands of others and now a greedy ******* landlord is asking for more.

https://www.parklanestables.co.uk/news/blog-post-title-one-73ata-f4h7s-z435a

I read the link - thank you. It is a bloody travesty and another example of a greedy landlord. I know how important horse riding is to many disabled people.

I couldn't see the landlord's name in the article. Name and shame the greedy ****ers.

 

[essbee1]

I hope they can find a permanent home, and I am happy to contribute if they do. Do PM me in that case. Meanwhile, I hope it rebounds on the landlord, via adverse publicity, etc.

In East Grinstead, we had a very useful sewing, etc, supplies shop. Mum used to buy thread and other things there. A few years back, they announced that they were closing, as their rent had been raised massively. The landlord signed a deal for Cote Brasserie to open on the site. Cote then decided that they weren't going to open branches in towns under a certain population size, so they pulled out. The shop sat empty for a year, meaning the silly idiot didn't get any rent for that time. There is now a fine dining restaurant operating there, but they were shut down during the lockdown, so probably had to ask for a rent rebate.

Will do WHS - ta.

 

[Giraffe]

Shocking. I seem to recall Rob Brydon was involved in campaigning for this as the stables is local to him? I hope he gets on the case again and as someone has said the landlord needs to be named and shamed. I don't know how they have the gall to do it.

 

[Baldseagull]

Shocking. I seem to recall Rob Brydon was involved in campaigning for this as the stables is local to him? I hope he gets on the case again and as someone has said the landlord needs to be named and shamed. I don't know how they have the gall to do it.

If I had some land I wanted to dispose of, I would sell to the highest bidder, am I missing something here as to what the landowner is doing so wrong?

 

[Giraffe]

If I had some land I wanted to dispose of, I would sell to the highest bidder, am I missing something here as to what the landowner is doing so wrong?

I get that point, but given the efforts the charity went to to raise the funds it is fairly bad to now change the goal posts at this stage. This isn't a normal buyer seller situation is it. The seller knew what they were agreeing to when they said the charity could buy at £xs.

 

[Hamilton]

Who is the greedy bugger who has asked for more dough? I notice the landlord isn't mentioned anywhere, so how does one write to them to express concern?

 

[essbee1]

I get that point, but given the efforts the charity went to to raise the funds it is fairly bad to now change the goal posts at this stage. This isn't a normal buyer seller situation is it. The seller knew what they were agreeing to when they said the charity could buy at £xs.

Exactly this. It's not any piece of land. It provides horse riding for disabled kids as well. I know business is business
but after raising the cash asked for, it takes on helluva callous **** of a landlord to then turn round and say they
want more imho.

 

[Giraffe]

Exactly this. It's not any piece of land. It provides horse riding for disabled kids as well. I know business is business
but after raising the cash asked for, it takes on helluva callous **** of a landlord to then turn round and say they
want more imho.

I'd add to this slightly that it does depend who the landlord is. If they are a billionaire for whom £300k means nothing then yes. However if it some old bid who has sat on this for year and just wants to realise as much as possible for her three children or something I'd have more sympathy. But the latter seems unlikely.

 

[Baldseagull]

I get that point, but given the efforts the charity went to to raise the funds it is fairly bad to now change the goal posts at this stage. This isn't a normal buyer seller situation is it. The seller knew what they were agreeing to when they said the charity could buy at £xs.

The piece does not say what the PLS offer actually was, only that it was based on the highest of 3 valuations, they do not say whether that is below or in excess of the £1M valuation that the vendor had previously asked for. In any case, land prices rise and fall, if land prices had fallen between the vendor asking for £1M and the charity raising the funds, they would not have bought at £1M, if the plot was then valued at £700K, it's just what happens with land and property, you pay the market rate.

 

[Justice]

Exactly this. It's not any piece of land. It provides horse riding for disabled kids as well. I know business is business
but after raising the cash asked for, it takes on helluva callous **** of a landlord to then turn round and say they
want more imho.

It’s worse than that, the charity fund raised a total of £1.3m, originally the seller asked for £1m until they found out the charity had raised £1.3m.

 

[Baldseagull]

It’s worse than that, the charity fund raised a total of £1.3m, originally the seller asked for £1m until they found out the charity had raised £1.3m.

But they have not offered £1M, they have offered less than £800K.

 

[Justice]

But they have not offered £1M, they have offered less than £800K.

In that case what is the issue I read it as they originally shock hands on £1m. Below £800k seems low for that part of the world.

 

[essbee1]

In that case what is the issue I read it as they originally shock hands on £1m. Below £800k seems low for that part of the world.

Indeed. And also, in that case it means that there's 200k of the public's money (my money) NOT being used in the way
for which it was given.

 

[Baldseagull]

In that case what is the issue I read it as they originally shock hands on £1m. Below £800k seems low for that part of the world.

I made an error, they have had 3 independent valuations, the highest one came in at £850K, as a charity they cannot pay above the valuation, they offered £840K. They say that legally they can not match the vendors other offer even though they have the funds to do so. To me it seems they have been shafted by the valuation as much as anything.

 

[Baldseagull]

Indeed. And also, in that case it means that there's 200k of the public's money (my money) NOT being used in the way
for which it was given.

I assume they will use the funds to purchase something else in the area, the problem is the valuation and their legal obligations.

https://www.horseandhound.co.uk/news/park-lane-stables-leaving-teddington-price-rise-746795

 

[Justice]

I made an error, they have had 3 independent valuations, the highest one came in at £850K, as a charity they cannot pay above the valuation, they offered £840K. They say that legally they can not match the vendors other offer even though they have the funds to do so. To me it seems they have been shafted by the valuation as much as anything.

So now that’s cleared up it seem it not utterly disgraceful at all, maybe the thread title should be changed. In fact the charity shouldn’t have made any kind of deal or either fund raised for the project until they had arranged the independent valuations.

 

[Questions]

I get that point, but given the efforts the charity went to to raise the funds it is fairly bad to now change the goal posts at this stage. This isn't a normal buyer seller situation is it. The seller knew what they were agreeing to when they said the charity could buy at £xs.

I’m sure a legal challenge is the last thing the charity needs or wants but if a written agreement was in place in anyway then I’m sure they would have some sort of entitlement......