How many units did Harlequin REALLY complete?

barbados-lawsuit-question.jpg

“I’m not sure of the current situation but I think it is something like only 300 units built out of 6000 sold, and no money left to build the missing units.”

BFP’s Robert takes a WAG (that’s ‘Wild Ass Guess’) about the number of units actually completed by Harlequin.

Reader “J” takes exception to Robert and says…

“The real number is closer to 120 that are built, about 10 are used for reception, liverpool football club  then staff / ‘celeb’ visits. Ten are not finished but in the main resort, not used.

So at any one time the most cabana’s that can be rented is around 100.

At a push if you include the semi derelict ones behind the fence, maybe another 50.

Block 2 is built but only 30 units finished, currently being used by HP staff.”

What do you think, folks? How many units has Harlequin really finished out of the 6000 sold?

29 Comments

Filed under Barbados, Barbados Tourism

29 responses to “How many units did Harlequin REALLY complete?

  1. Anonymous

    They do not have planning permission nor own all the land at Marquis Estate St Lucia, and indeed have not started to build any of the close to 2000 units sold there. They do not have full planning for all sold at Merricks in Barbados, and indeed have not started any units there, other than a few show homes. In the Dom Rep, they have not commenced any of the developments. So, 5 developments where they sold thousands of homes either is on land they do not own, they do not have planning permission and none have started (does that sound like a company that can be trusted) So, the only units built are in St Vincent. If you take what is there and habitable, the number is less than 130. So, less than 130 out of 6000 is the answer. Oh, and by the way, most of the money handed over went to Ames and his agents, despite not having planning permission for the units sold. Is this something the authorities should have done something about years ago? Damn right they should have. The absence of action is a disgrace, and any defence of this performance is also is a disgrace.

  2. All seeing eye.....

    Hang on ONE HUNDRED able to rent out!!
    Simple ‘man maths’ guys, how much would the rack rate need to be to make any money!!! assuming 30% occupancy.

    I rest my case.

  3. Jim Baker

    A point that we are all missing?

    Clearly with the staff costs at SVG / UK, can’t be covered by Buccament Bay, agreed?

    Could that be why Ames is pushing completions? Or does he have a cash fund he did not declare to Nikki Crozier?

    Mmmmmmmm

  4. Gareth's Groupies

    Oh dear, I’m only a stay at home Mum with a GF crush…. but that is bad real bad. cost £4 million for each unit, no way?

  5. Fatchett does not represent me.

    Even I am struggling to defend that.

  6. Fatchett does not represent me.

    Not me posting that dick head

  7. Anonymous

    How can anyone defend that? It is the most blatant scam we have ever seen here, the sheer lack of existence of any properties, permissions etc so many years later. No further proof needed. UK, please remove these crooks from our shores and deal with them.

  8. TAILORMADE INDEPENDENT (IN LIQUIDATION)

    I have just had a call from TM advising me they have started liquidation proceedings.

    A creditors meeting will be held on 11th October 2013.

    RSM Tennon will then be officially appointed.

    More information will be sent out by TM

  9. BBaywatch

    Otherwise satisfied guests have commented on TA that the public areas, beach, poolside etc and restaurants have trouble accommodating guests even at the present levels of occupancy and with only a fraction of the number of proposed units.

    The real question is how could BB bear the weight of expectation that any rescue plan will impose? Clearly it is incapable of returning any significant profits in its present state and the building out of even more units will only exacerbate the current situation. The planned number of units was always predicated on how many could be sold to inexperienced investors and had nothing to do with any practicalities or indeed any kind of planning or perceived demand for the product.

    With no accounts, no accurate records of occupancy and no research or forecasts going forward what institutions or individuals would consider providing the investment finance required?

  10. Seven Capitals Seven thousand investors

    That would depend how cheap someone could buy it for I guess?

    The venture vultures could string Aimless along until BB runs out of money they just snap up a bargain, less any investor problems.

    No one has seen a letter of intent yet?

    I have no idea why they would invest in such a clearly toxic brand?

    Could Aimless just be full of shit again and just want the last tranche of investor completion monies?

  11. Crazy Capital Investments LLC

    100 crap units, on a false disappearing beach beach, on a shitty little island, nothing to do, no decent transport links, with a mosquito breeding ground……….. £400 million gone – what’s not to like about investing???

  12. Sanjat

    Harlequin news although is not new, the new Food and Beverage Director and Resort Manager at Buccament Bay run away, déjà vu!!

  13. wot a mess

    He has only been there a few months? The pervy looking American?

  14. Sanjat

    yes, the American and the Argentinian.
    The crooks are getting away though, is like they are unstoppable delinquents “at large”.
    Why nobody put an end on this derelict company, detriment to humanity!

  15. A Hotel professional.

    When you start to loose quality management from Sandles etc you have a problem.

    Mind you being told what to do by Matt Ames who couldn’t run a tap must be difficult for a true hotel professional.

    They may get a couple of travel Lodge managers to run things😉

    5 Star by arse.

  16. A YMCA Manager

    Even I would not touch them!

  17. Just a holidaymaker !

    Your reader ‘J’ is spot on. No more than 100 units – certainly no more than 120 or so guests in UK school holiday weeks. Quality of what is there is really good though !! As it stands, BB cant cope with more than about 150 guests anyway – facilities will be overused, and quality will drop. Catch 22 !

  18. Operation Brown ' The color of Dave's undies'

    Hang on, hang on, in order for the quality to drop it has to be there in the first place!

  19. Just a holidaymaker !

    I take it you’ve been there ?

  20. Anonymous

    Here we go again. Such a massive scam organised by scum people . We are there slaves to our debt now. It’s time to up the game. Shame on this company.

  21. cold light of day

    this discussion is the most important on here its the basis of the whole thing,how many units complete?how many deposits from how many investors?what level of occupancy?what profit loss on operations?when is more development likely to commence ?is the building so far completed up to a standard ? boring i know but people with contracts for units far from started are being asked to give them up without any idea of any of the above,dont you think they should be in the know so they may make a judgement if they have any hope of seeing some sort of return on their investment more than ever as they are being asked i understand for more monies .just for the record i find none of the above boring as i believe its information all require as soon as possible

  22. The Rented Apprentice

    All,

    SIPP Providers

    We have posted a “SIPP Claims” video on the website for you to review. There are a few FAQs for you to look at. We are allowing comments so you can add new comments for us to respond to. We know that many people are concerned about the annual fees on their SIPP. This is addressed in the update. The other pressing question is whether SIPPs need to agree to the Investor Trust.

    A number of salient points arise :-

    1. SIPPs are member directed. You tell them what you want to do. Not the other way round.

    2. During the whole period of upheaval not one SIPP provider has taken any formal step to protect investors. They have remained tellingly quiet.

    3. The FCA Guidance published in October 2013 sets out what the FCA expect SIPP providers to do. We are already asking SIPP providers to formally confirm their position in relation to the expectation of the FCA.

    4. We do not expect SIPP providers to be happy. Their current (and rather predictable) stance is to blame everything on IFA’s / agents for giving the original advice. This circle of blame does nothing to help investors recover their investment.

    5. A SIPP is a trust. The trustees should have no issue explaining their conduct. It may be that they have complied and everything is in order. However, it would be odd for investors not to enquire.

    Our simple conclusion is that the Investor Trust proposal seeks to mitigate loss. Therefore, it is in simple terms appropriate for a SIPP to support it. The fact that our firm is also asking questions of prior conduct is irrelevant. The trustee needs to be mindful of the beneficiary’s interests, not its own.

    Agents / IFA’s

    We continue to see a small number of agents / IFA’s seek to muddy the waters. We have had to take the unusual step of writing to two firms today asking them to justify some of the inaccurate and misleading statements they were making to investors. It is sad, but some agents / IFA’s are telling clients to do nothing and to wait. Wait for what ?

    Harlequin needs the help of an Investor Trust. It does not need agents / IFAs putting their self interest first. Frankly, most investors have lost faith in their advisers. Advisers offer no real solutions. They have not brought matters to the cusp of a solution. They might just bring matters to a conclusion if they continue behaving with such self interest.

    Regulatory Legal Solicitors

  23. Blame

    RL are supporting Harlequin. No where in their letter do they mention the original advice or due diligence packs provided by Harlequin to the IFA’s and agents.

    RL are looking to remove culpability from Harlequin. Yes its easy, blame the SIPP’s and IFA’s. Seek redress from their insurers and pray that is an end of the matter.

    This is what is causing consternation amongst the IFA’s, Agents and SIPP providers. This apparent protection of the Ames family whilst attacking the SIPP providers and IFA’s and agents is what will cause the collapse of Harlequin.

    Ames is meeting with a number of SIPP providers and IFA’s next week at the instigation of the SIPP providers and IFA’s. The information Ames provided them was indeed manifestly false and it is absurd to think that Ames will get away with letting SIPP providers and IFA’s carry the can for the crimes of the Ames family.

    One wonders why RL have not been invited to these meetings.

  24. Anonymous

    What a vile group of uneducated thieves the Ames and most of Harlequin are. They belong behind bars, and in time hopefully that is where they will be.

  25. cold light of day

    did agents ever have limits on sales? say for instance a call from h.q. that a certain development was sold out. what i cant get my head around is that you place a deposit on number 27a but that money could be used however the holders of that deposit see fit.i put a deposit on a house built by a developer for number 27a i expect to end up with 27a not part ownership of the footpath outside which will be in a trust anyway .is it me? i just dont get it.you dont build 27a i want my money back .i dont want some vague ownership of something that i didnt set out to buy.can anyone else agree we need to get back to the very basics on this.you cant build 27a ,ok want my money back ,cant do that no funds,so did the developers directors trade insolvent ,if they did i want their house.what is going on please tell me,on another tack sfo have spent taxpayers funds on this over a long period they wont want to be seen to be wrong

  26. Anonymous

    SOME ONE TRYING TO BE THICK?

  27. The people's front of Judea

    It’s all kicking off over on the (ir)regulatory legal blog ….. The PHIG is screwing the HIG , Ames is shafting fatshit …… We have a IFA called Liion screwing up the trust and united to shag the investors is behind it all , thou shalt not seek redress from the advisor ……. Thou shalt surrender thy contract and shut the fuck up !!!

  28. Blame

    Fatchett trusted Ames. Fatchett needed access to the data base in order to seek redress from SIPP providers and IFA’s.

    He got this.

    Ames had hoped against hope that Fatchett would convince all to give up their contracts and join the trust. Ames knew that any action against SIPP providers and Agents would come back full circle on him. Ames knows Fatchett’s actions will now mean that Harlequin will be liquidated.

    Ames had hoped that everyone would give up their contracts, but also wants us to believe that he wants to use the SIPP providers and agents to sell more product ???????????

    So were these purchasers going to have to give up their contracts too?

    Is it not time that investors saw this for the fraud it really is. Harlequin is finished.

    Now we have Ames’s PHIG group objecting to the redress option.

  29. Fat Cash

    Lets not forget one completion by Pat Cashes manager – no cash changed hands (apparently)