• Report: #1002678

Complaint Review: EMPIRICAL PROPERTY GROUP

Thank You

Read how Ripoff Report saves consumers millions.

  • Submitted: Thu, January 24, 2013
  • Updated: Sat, August 02, 2014

  • Reported By: Anna — Reading Nationwide United Kingdom
EMPIRICAL PROPERTY GROUP
2 Oak Court, Swinton, Manchester Internet United States of America

EMPIRICAL PROPERTY GROUP FRESH START LIVING LTD CHARLIE CUNNINGHAM, PHIL WRIGHT Internet

*General Comment: CPC Worldwide

*Consumer Comment: freshstart living, empirical property group,urbanblox

*Consumer Comment: freshstart living, empirical property group, pf advisors ltd, fsl invest, fslinvest

*Consumer Comment: freshstart living, empirical property group, pf advisors ltd

*Consumer Comment: freshstart living, empirical property group, pf advisors ltd

*Consumer Suggestion: empirical property group, fresh start living charlie cunningham

*Consumer Comment: freshstart living ,charlie cunningham , fresh start living ltd

What's this?
What's this?
What's this?
Is this
Ripoff Report
About you?
Ripoff Report
A business' first
line of defense
on the Internet.
If your business is
willing to make a
commitment to
customer satisfaction
Click here now..

Does your business have a bad reputation?
Fix it the right way.
Corporate Advocacy Program™

SEO Reputation Management at its best!

Does anyone know which firm of Insolvency Practitioners are proposing the CVA on Empirical Property Group aka Fresh Start aka Affordable Property Group (their latest name?)

This report was posted on Ripoff Report on 01/24/2013 01:37 PM and is a permanent record located here: http://www.ripoffreport.com/r/EMPIRICAL-PROPERTY-GROUP/internet/EMPIRICAL-PROPERTY-GROUP-FRESH-START-LIVING-LTD-CHARLIE-CUNNINGHAM-PHIL-WRIGHT-Internet-1002678. The posting time indicated is Arizona local time. Arizona does not observe daylight savings so the post time may be Mountain or Pacific depending on the time of year.

Ripoff Report has an exclusive license to this report. It may not be copied without the written permission of Ripoff Report.

Click Here to read other Ripoff Reports on EMPIRICAL PROPERTY GROUP

Search for additional reports

If you would like to see more Rip-off Reports on this company/individual, search here:

Search Tips
Report & Rebuttal
Respond to this report!
What's this?
Also a victim?
What's this?
Repair Your Reputation!
What's this?
REBUTTALS & REPLIES:
0Author 7Consumer 0Employee/Owner
Updates & Rebuttals

#1 General Comment

CPC Worldwide

AUTHOR: CPCWorldwide - ()

We are currently investigating Middle England Developments/ Penlake Limited after receiving complaints from investors.

 

Please visit: http://middleenglanddevelopmentsdebt.wordpress.com

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#2 Consumer Comment

freshstart living, empirical property group,urbanblox

AUTHOR: off to market - ()

Although they now claim to be at 7 Empress Street, Old Trafford, Manchester, M27 8FF, I could find no sign of them there. The telephone number is 0845 259 1904. Email: contact@empiricalproperty.com Or you can get them at urbanblox on 0845 653 1029. Email: contact@urbanblox.co.uk

My experience:

Pre-contract, Fresh Start Living Limited misrepresented to me they owned property but didn't; They also misrepresented the timescale to exchange and completion.  On the basis of their misrepresentations I paid a deposit.

FSL took my deposit money of £xx,xxx without supplying property and have not returned my deposit for over 2 YEARS.. They have no valid excuse. They ignore all contact requests.

They obtained my deposit by deception and simply refused to give it back despite obtaining a court order to repay it (CCJ) and sending the Bailifs round.

They have numerous active CCJ's against them (Source: http://Bizzy.co.uk)

A few helpful but negative posts have been filtered out despite being FACTUAL. I would be surprised if this post isn't removed.

Fresh Start Living Limited have been taken to court many times for not paying their debts i.e. at Luton Court on 15th January 2013.  Google this case or you can phone the court to confirm this.

An investor has applied to the courts to have the company shut down.

The One Show on the BBC are doing an exposé very soon and will be filming in Manchester THIS FRIDAY.  If you have been a victim and lost money to Fresh Start Living please contact the BBC One Show and help protect further victims by raising awareness.

BBC Contact: mark.rainsforth@bbc.co.uk

Although they now claim to be at 7 Empress Street, Old Trafford, Manchester, M27 8FF, I could find no sign of them there. The telephone number is 0845 259 1904. Email: contact@empiricalproperty.com Or you can get them at urbanblox on 0845 653 1029. Email: contact@urbanblox.co.uk

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#3 Consumer Comment

freshstart living, empirical property group, pf advisors ltd, fsl invest, fslinvest

AUTHOR: ravegarden - ()

A LONDON property developer is behind a bid to wind up Salford buy-to-let specialist FreshStart Living.

Roger Walters, chief executive of Supercity UK which operates three aparthotels in the capital, is chasing FreshStart over a £20,000 deposit he paid on 10 flats at a proposed FreshStart student scheme in Nottingham.

He says the scheme is now not going ahead and he wants his money back, but FreshStart insists the development is on track, although it has been delayed.

The company was planning to convert a 30,000 sq ft office building at the Victoria Shopping Centre into 157 student apartments in time for the 2012-13 academic year.

Mr Walters said: “They didn’t own the property and they never bought it so there was no chance of developing it so I asked for my money back, and they just don’t give it back, it’s incredible, they just don’t.”

Mr Walters issued a statutory demand, which gives a debtor 21 days to pay, and then issued a winding-up petition which was heard in London on Monday. The case was adjourned to give both sides time to submit evidence.

FreshStart’s chief executive Charlie Cunningham said it was “rubbish” that the Nottingham development had been abandoned. “We’ve exchanged contracts which makes us the beneficial owner and we’re going through the planning process to change it into student accommodation. It’s taken much longer than we hoped it would but there’s no question of the scheme not going ahead.”

He added: “He’s reserved six units and is contractually obliged to buy the units and complete. We’ve offered him a number of alternatives but that hasn’t come to anything.”

But Mr Walters told TheBusinessDesk he was not interested in other developments. He said: “I’m not going to let it go, I’m going to take it all the way. They’re not denying they have the money, they even offered to move it to another scheme. They’re not denying it, they just don’t want to give it back.”

A developer for 30 years, Mr Walters said he wanted to “let someone else do the developing” and has also put a deposit of £75,000 down on six flats at FreshStart’s Trafford Press scheme in Manchester which has not yet been completed.

as featured in businessdesk.com by James Graham

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#4 Consumer Comment

freshstart living, empirical property group, pf advisors ltd

AUTHOR: ravegarden - ()

Notice Code: 2450

Petitions to Wind Up (Companies)

In the High Court of Justice (Chancery Division)

Companies Court     No 4211 of 2013

In the Matter of FRESH START LIVING LIMITED

(Company Number 06816500)

and in the Matter of the Insolvency Act 1986

A Petition to wind up the above-named Company Registered No 06816500 of 2nd Floor, Oak Court, Clifton Business Park, Wynne Avenue, Swinton, Manchester M27 8FF, presented on 12 June 2013 by Roger Walters, of 55 Ennismore Gardens, London SW7 1AJ, claiming to be a Creditor of the Company, will be heard at The Royal Courts of Justice, 7 Rolls Building, Fetter Lane, London EC4A 1NL, on 29 July 2013, at 10.30 am(or as soon thereafter as the Petition can be heard).

Any person intending to appear on the hearing of the Petition (whether to support or oppose it) must give notice of intention to do so to the Petitioner or its Solicitor in accordance with Rule 4.16 by 1600 hours on 26 July 2013.

The Petitioner’s Solicitor is Brecher, 4th Floor, 64 North Row W1K 7LL. DX 42701 OXFORD CIRCUS NORTH. (Ref SR/W11-9.)

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#5 Consumer Comment

freshstart living, empirical property group, pf advisors ltd

AUTHOR: Admin - ()

I lost money to this shower...now it appears from this report in the British edition of the Financial Times that I am not alone. BE WARNED

 

Student pods attacked over failure to deliver promised returns

 

By Stephen Wilmot

 

Student pods – the latest buy-to-let vogue, where investors buy a single room in a development – have been attacked for failing to deliver promised double-digit returns.

 

Attracted by guaranteed returns of up to 10 per cent and prices as low as £30,000 – substantially less than an equivalent buy-to-let property – investors have snapped up pods across the UK.

 

But because the properties are small, typically 12-13 square metres, the bite-sized asking prices belie high underlying property values. A £59,995 pod investment on the market in Canterbury, for example, costs more than twice the average for the city on a per square foot basis, according to Hometrack, a housing analytics company.

 

Student-accommodation blocks have performed strongly, with annual returns of 9 per cent last year, according to estate agent Knight Frank. Rents have been buoyed by the growth of students from Asia, who typically prefer purpose-built housing.

 

The strong market has attracted sophisticated investors, including private equity funds and overseas institutions. According to Jones Lang LaSalle, the property group, transaction in the UK student accommodation market was close to £1.9bn last year, more than double the value in 2011.

 

But there are fears that some developers are using the buoyant market to sell inappropriate products to private investors.

 

Kavita Bachada, an employment lawyer, bought a pod in Liverpool for £42,000 in 2011, tempted by a 10 per cent yield guaranteed for 12 months. “There was nothing out there . . . that offered anything like these returns,” she said.

 

While the income flowed as expected for 18 months, it has since dried up. Middle England Developments, the developer, has now asked pod investors for a three-month “payment holiday”. It blamed a surge in vacancies caused by tuition fees, a clampdown on foreign students and a wave of development in the city.

 

One problem is that the eye-catching guaranteed yields are typically subsidised by the developer, so income from rents, and property resale value, may fall when the guarantee runs out.

 

Another developer, FreshStart Living, last month agreed a settlement to hand over a total of £131,000 in unpaid rent to 70 investors. It has since stopped selling pods to individual investors.

 

“The guarantees are rarely sustainable,” said Charlie Cunningham, its chief executive. “Investors are often left with a useless property from which they will not only struggle to generate a reasonable income but they will also struggle to resell.”

 

Mr Cunningham called for tighter regulation of the market, noting “people investing in property are not that sophisticated”.

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#6 Consumer Suggestion

empirical property group, fresh start living charlie cunningham

AUTHOR: Psk111 - ()

There is now a single collective forum to enable Investors in any of the Freshstart Living/FSL companies to voice any concerns/problems we may have had. 

Please use it, and publish the following website address wherever you can. Hopefully, this will prove beneficial for the many people who have invested money in fresh start living property investments. 

www.freshstartlivinginvestors.blogspot.com

also, 

direct email : mardwick@inbox.com 
Respond to this report!
What's this?

#7 Consumer Comment

freshstart living ,charlie cunningham , fresh start living ltd

AUTHOR: anonymous - (United States of America)

IN THE LUTON County Court

Claim number 2QZ22139

Luton County Court
2nd Floor, Cresta House
Alma Street
Luton 
Bedfordshire
LU1 2PU 

Tuesday, 15th January 2013

Before:

DEPUTY DISTRICT JUDGE MCCOURT

- - - - - - - -

SK------
Claimant

-v-

FRESH START LIVING LIMITED

Defendant

- - - - - - - -
MR STEPHEN DYER (of Neves & Dyer) appeared on behalf of the Claimant.

THE DEFENDANT did not attend and was not represented.

- - - - - - - -
 
DEPUTY DISTRICT JUDGE MCCOURT: I should say, Mr Dyer, as is customary, this hearing is being recorded. You may not know that, Mr Dyer. You represent the claimant, Mr Skinner.

MR DYER: That is correct. 

DEPUTY DISTRICT JUDGE MCCOURT: And you may not know that yesterday there was an email from Fresh Start, from one Hannah Jones, apparently, said to be for and on behalf of Chris Hutchinson, in-house lawyer. "Please note that there is nobody for the company available to attend the proposed hearing at Luton tomorrow. We apologise for the late notice provided. If we are able to arrange, can you please advise how?" It is not for the court to advise parties. The parties, if they are making applications to set aside judgment, they should surely, of course, attend. Have you had any correspondence, Mr Dyer?

MR DYER: No. I had late instructions on this matter. I know what it is about. All I have seen is an application to set aside which says

DEPUTY DISTRICT JUDGE MCCOURT: Let me tell you. I have a limited file and there are cryptic notes. The claim is for a 15,000 deposit for A failed property purchase, plus interest and costs. "Fresh Start Living Limited represented to me verbally and by way of email that they had acquired a property known as Victoria House, Milton Street, Nottingham. FSL verbally stated that the property conversion would be completed by September 2011. On 30th June 2011, FSL by way of email set out the time scale for exchange and completion. Based on these representations, on 7th July 2011 I signed an agreement to purchase. My solicitor" That was not you at that time, was it?

MR DYER: It was.

DEPUTY DISTRICT JUDGE MCCOURT: It was you. "My solicitor later discovered FSL never owned this building and may never be in a position to purchase it". Is that correct?

MR DYER: That is correct. 

DEPUTY DISTRICT JUDGE MCCOURT: "FSL refused to refund our deposit, which is unreasonable". So there was a judgment in default. It appears that that process was quite proper, i.e. the judgment was a regular judgment, because the application says so. The application is signed by one Philip Wright, whose status in the company is not made known to me - or to you, presumably.

MR DYER: No. 

DEPUTY DISTRICT JUDGE MCCOURT: He says, "We missed the time frame stated in the CPR due to an administrative error by one of our temporary employees." This takes the case out of CPR 13.2, which, of course, is the provision for irregular judgments and I am left with an application. I am not going to adjourn this matter. I am going to deal with it. That means that it is under CPR 13.3, cases where the court may set aside a judgment entered under part 12. "The court may set aside a judgment entered under part 12" - that is the default judgment, of course. It was a default judgment, was it not? 

MR DYER: Yes, That is correct.

DEPUTY DISTRICT JUDGE MCCOURT: I should for completeness say that judgment was on 1st November. "If the defendant has a real prospect of successfully defending the claim or it appears to the court that there is some other good reason why the defendant should be allowed to defend the claim".

All we have from the defendant is the application which simply says - this is Mr Wright's statement in support of the application - it confirms the administrative error and then says, "The judgment came as a shock as we wished to robustly defend the claim that has been served upon the defendant company. I believe, if the courts were in receipt of the full written and incidental evidence, they would not have come to this decision". That does not help me. There is no reason, of course, why the witness statement should not give me some clue as to what, indeed, the defence is and, similarly, I am not too impressed by the fact that the defendants are not here. They could, of course, have instructed a solicitor or an agent to attend. 
Is there anything further that you want to add, Mr Dyer?

MR DYER: In a nutshell, I think that you have argued my case for me, sir. 

DEPUTY DISTRICT JUDGE MCCOURT: Yes, because the defendants are not here, I thought it appropriate for the purposes of the record to state the reasons why I am, therefore, dismissing the application. I am going to do precisely that. I am not striking it out, I am dismissing it, because I have dealt with it. Application dismissed.

Costs, Mr Dyer?

MR DYER: I have done a very foolish thing this morning. I thought that I should bring my original file in connection with the purchase, which I took out of our archives, and I left the file that I prepared to bring to court on the side.

DEPUTY DISTRICT JUDGE MCCOURT: Are you actually on the record?

MR DYER: I was about to file the notice of action. I had all that prepared and left it in my office in Hitchin.

DEPUTY DISTRICT JUDGE MCCOURT: Right. I am going to make, I think, the appropriate order.

MR DYER: The costs that I worked out this morning were 546 plus VAT.

DEPUTY DISTRICT JUDGE MCCOURT: Well, you are not on the record.

MR DYER: So I am in difficulties. 

DEPUTY DISTRICT JUDGE MCCOURT: You have not prepared a schedule, so I am going to say no order as to costs. Should this proceed, no doubt you will file notice of acting and away we go, but I think that the defendant will now have an uphill struggle as the defendant has, of course, voted with his feet by not attending. There we go. Application dismissed.

MR DYER: I am obliged, sir. 
- - - - - - -
Respond to this report!
What's this?
Report & Rebuttal
Respond to this report!
What's this?
Also a victim?
What's this?
Repair Your Reputation!
What's this?

Advertisers above have met our
strict standards for business conduct.



Ripoff Report Legal Directory