Harlequin selling Headquarters building for £525,000 – Where is the £400million taken from investors?

harlequin headquarters fraud

We’d say it was like selling off the family silverware, except there is no silverware left. Probably never was any.

After slickly removing £400 million from little old ladies and transit pensioners, David Ames and his gang are selling off their headquarters to pay the bills.

The Serious Fraud Office and the Essex Police have had an open file on the bunch since early 2013, but after two years Ames is still walking around with the rotting financial corpses of thousands of victims in his wake.

Two years should be long enough for the police and the SFO to do the job. What’s the delay?

From the Professional Adviser…

Troubled Harlequin puts HQ up for sale

Troubled overseas property investment scheme Harlequin has put its headquarters up for sale.

The warehouse and offices in the Honywood Business Park in Basildon have been listed for sale on property website Rightmove for £525,000. Harlequin owner David Ames would also consider leasing back the first floor offices at a rent of £25,000 per year, according to the advert.

A spokesperson for the company said: “Harlequin owns its Basildon offices and occupies the first floor of Unit 11, with all other space let to third parties.

“Harlequin is attempting to sell in order to discharge its liability and remove its responsibilities as a lessor.”

The move raises further questions over the financial situation of the company, which has received £400m from investors that they are currently unable to access.

Unregulated investment scheme Harlequin worked by taking deposits from mainly UK pension investors to build off-plan properties in the Caribbean, which could then be sold at a profit on completion or used to generate a rental income from holidaymakers. But out of a scheduled 6,000 properties, about 300 have been built.

… read the rest at the Professional Adviser


Filed under Barbados, Business & Banking, Consumer Issues, Crime & Law, Offshore Investments

259 responses to “Harlequin selling Headquarters building for £525,000 – Where is the £400million taken from investors?

  1. Lodge of sound business sense.

    We’ll done Harlequin for taking the correct option of selling the building and renting it back. Releases £500k in capital in exchange for £25k per annum in rent. Sensible decision which surely no one could complain about.

  2. SB

    How about him selling his ponzi house in Essex too?

  3. Lodge of "let's think of yet another Harlequin thread " on BFP

    Get Fatchett to draft a press release to Laura Miller to post on here. We could do with yet another Harlequin thread to comment on.

  4. Anon

    Why did they need to buy it in the first place? Why didn’t they share office space with an established company and pay rent?

  5. Anonymous

    They owe the CLC clients c £ 1.3 million Anna Canga c £ 250 k, Caldwell c £ 1.5 million and rising, Shipley’s now Leonard Curtis in excess of £ 500 k in personal funds, and HMRC, A Barclays Mortgage also given that the offices are not owned by the companies but by Carol and Dan Ames, I very much doubt, in fact there will be nothing left for investors.

  6. Anon

    Funny that everyone calls it the HQ including Ames when last year in the RL jurisdiction case Ames and his lawyers denied there was even a birds eye view from the UK. Of course it was just another lie to another court.

  7. Anonymous

    No body owes CLC clients anything until September.

  8. Getty

    That’s great news. Only 5 months to go then.

    I imagine that every financier in the world will flock to invest in a company in such a position.

  9. Anon

    Selling up everything before they go off the grid? Probably taking our armoured cars with them!

  10. The armoured Range Rover with no security glass. Yeah right.

  11. Anon

    Think you missed the point. Don’t think we parted with our money to pay for luxury vehicles for Ames . Not quite sure what any of us are getting out the deal apart from smoke blown up our arses.

  12. 5 star underpinning the books

    Apart from being dirt cheap, with dilapidated brollies, a dearth of towels and dining by torchlight, this troubling observation from another TA reviewer reappears.

    ‘The signing of bills after each meal is frustrating and the prices shown are ridiculous ( $150 for breakfast)’

    Surely the Goblin isn’t attempting to cook the books ? Anyways I hear the food was good. Don’t ya loves a ‘bone on fillet’ and frozen crawfish & scallops.

  13. Wily Coyote

    CORRUPT Caribbean Governments are the SOLE cause of this situation, don’t blame the Harlequin’s of the world. Snake oil salesman have existing for thousands of years, it’s the regulatory system and inforcement that’s responsible.


    As the saying goes — BUYER BEWARE

  14. John Hanson 1781-1782- I SERVE 1788- 1792 BARBADOES.

    Wily Coyote
    April 6, 2015 at 11:27 pm @

    Now you talking , These are last class crooks , better for a country for have Aids and Ebola at the same time than to have these crooks , for then we can see there faces and names and know who to fight for a cure,,

  15. CLC good or bad news?

    Well, if there is a freezing order on this, and other properties, surly this can only mean:

    A) Ames is paying off the CLC claimants?
    B) CLC are letting him do what he wants?

  16. CLC good or bad news?

    Will it cost more money to stop him? Maybe, this is a cunning plan my Ames? Run them out of money?

    Won’t be the first time.

  17. Sid

    If Ames chooses to spend his time thinking up schemes to run people out of money, people who are only trying to recover their own money which they are contractually obliged to do, rather than working to honour his contractual obligation to said people, then that is the behaviour of a crook.

  18. Anonymous

    Well Sid, it’s more than a fair assumption the CLC bunch have not been paid, because, if they had, the freezer would not still be in force (it is)

    In the world of Ames, September (when he must pay them) is a lifetime away.

    He is hoping that they won’t dare challenge him, if they lose, they will pick up his costs – that could force them into a very uncomfortable position, lets estimate his costs at £500,000 – more if it goes to Court.

    He may well have some dirty tricks up his sleeve.

  19. Sid

    The whole situation is very wrong and very tasteless. If Ames ever does find himself answering to the authorities, this kind of behaviour will be used against him. Maybe he’s just being given all the rope he needs.

  20. The end is nigh

    That’s hopefully the plan Sid, Ames is too arrogant to see that.

  21. Sid

    I think Ames believes that the best form of defence is offence….which it often is, but not on something of this magnitude.

  22. Anonymous

    I wouldn’t class myself as either pro or anti Harlequin and I think the following are facts that all sides of this debate have to accept:

    1. The family running Harlequin and the agents selling the schemes have been hugely enriched in this process.

    2. The purchasers of the products have been hugely impoverished by buying into the schemes.

    3. The family running Harlequin have personal assets of some significant value bought with the proceeds of selling the schemes and, if they wish to demonstrate their willingness to assist the purchasers, they could sell these assets to improve the position of the companies and to repay their debts that have fallen due.

    4. That the family has not done 3 above pretty much tells you everything you need to know about how they consider their own interests and those of the people who trusted them by buying from Harlequin.

    It seems pretty clear that this has been an exercise in personal enrichment of a few people at the expense of thousands of others.

    Would anyone choose to disagree with this analysis?

  23. FOS rules poor advice in raft of new Harlequin claims

    FOS rules poor advice in raft of new Harlequin claims
    Professional Adviser | 10 Apr 2015 | 08:16
    Author: Scott J Sinclair
    Professional Adviser

    The Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) has ruled in favour of four complainants who separately claimed they were given unsuitable advice to transfer their personal pensions to new plans permitting investment in overseas property.
    In each case, the Ombudsman has ordered the advisory businesses involved – named as Regency Financial Resources, Kingswood Financial Advisors and CIB Life & Pensions – to compensate the clients who ultimately invested in unregulated overseas property scheme Harlequin.

    One case involved a presentation given by an IFA at a ‘money club’ and a deal eventually transacted on an execution-only basis. But it is set to cost the firm £45,000 in compensation.
    The four latest results, each dated in 2015 and involving transfers to self-invested personal pensions (SIPPs), mean the FOS has now ruled in favour of the client in each of the ten cases it has published related to investments in Harlequin.

    The unregulated investment scheme worked by taking deposits from mainly UK pension investors to build off-plan properties in the Caribbean, which could then be sold at a profit on completion or used to generate a rental income from holidaymakers. But out of a scheduled 6,000 properties, it is understood about 300 have been built.
    Some 85% of those who invested a total of about £400m in Harlequin did so on the recommendation of a financial adviser, according to law firm Regulatory Legal, which acts on behalf of about 2,000 investors in the scheme.

    In February, the Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS) announced it would compensate SIPP claimants for losses in the value of their investments in three schemes, including Harlequin Hotels and Resorts.
    It said this was in addition to compensating for lost pension growth and charges taken from their SIPPs.

    The four FOS verdicts… condensed:
    Mr A versus Regency Financial Resources
    Summary: The FOS ruled Regency, which no longer offers independent advice, was unsympathetic to its client’s capacity for loss and inflated his financial sophistication when it recommended he transfer three personal pension plans totalling almost £60,000 into a SIPP, which was then invested in Harlequin Property.

    Regency’s defence: Among its many lines of defence, Regency claimed ‘Mr A’ wished to adopt a high risk attitude for his pension planning, that it did not advise on the suitability of the underlying investment, and that the fact some of its clients did not ultimately invest in Harlequin proved it was assessing suitability both appropriately and on an individual basis.

    The FOS’s verdict: However, the FOS ruled Regency failed in its duty to give suitable advice. “I am satisfied that there is sufficient evidence for me to conclude that Regency acted with clear disregard for the interests of its client by making this recommendation,” the Ombudsman ruled.
    “The structure of the investment and the role of the various parties in promoting and managing the funds were all part of the risks involved.”

    Mr W and Ms G v Kingswood Financial Advisors
    Though these are separate cases recorded by the Ombudsman, the circumstances were very similar and the below offers a summary for both rulings…
    Summary: The Ombudsman decided Kingswood gave unsuitable advice to ‘Ms G’ (and ‘Mr W’) to switch her (his) entire pension provision – held in personal pensions – to a SIPP that enabled investment into overseas property, in this case Harlequin.

    Kingswood’s defence: The FOS noted the investment in Harlequin was made following the involvement of another adviser who, as well as working for a regulated business, also had a separate unregulated business. Kingswood argued it did not provide advice to invest into Harlequin, but only advised to hold the investment through a SIPP. It said at no stage did it make a ‘personal recommendation’.

    The FOS’s verdict: The Ombudsman ruled the requirement “under the rules” was for Kingswood to provide suitable advice. “It is difficult to understand how investing all of Ms G’s (and Mr W’s) pension fund in one unregulated overseas property development could be suitable for her (him),” it concluded.
    Though it accepted another business was involved in the sale of the Harlequin property, the complaint was against Kingswood, and the FOS argued it was justified to consider the company failed in its duty of care towards its client.

    Ms E v CIB Life and Pensions
    Professional Adviser has already reported on this case. This is the first time the company involved can be named as CIB. The case has caused some controversy because of the extent to which the investment was initiated by the complainant, and that no advice was given.
    Summary: The FOS said CIB Life & Pensions was wrong to categorise its client as a ‘professional’ investor and, by flagging the potential benefits of investing in Harlequin at a presentation hosted jointly by it and CIB, the IFA misled Ms E – a retail client – by effectively endorsing the investment.
    CIB’s defence: Among its arguments were that, as a member of a ‘money club’ in front of whom its presentation was given, the complainant would likely be knowledgeable and capable of making her own decisions.
    CIB also argued that, as Ms E contacted it sometime after the presentation – and after making a reservation directly with Harlequin Property – this indicated her level of knowledge and meant she should be treated as a ‘professional’ client.

    It also claimed it did not provide any inducements to Ms E and regularly suggested she seek regulated advice if unsure at any stage.
    The FOS’s ruling: In a final adjudication dated 3 February, the Ombudsman said Ms E was not a professional client and that an adequate assessment of her circumstances would have shown that. She was a retail client, it concluded, to whom financial promotions must fit certain criteria, such as that they are not misleading and do not highlight potential benefits.
    It concluded Harlequin was promoted as an “excellent investment opportunity” at the presentation.
    It conceded CIB informed the complainant about seeking advice, but said it “tempered” that suggestion by pointing out it would come with a fee. “I do not consider Ms E would have been inclined to seek such advice,” the FOS concluded, adding: “I am not persuaded that the presentation and the direct offer pack provided Ms E fair, clear and not misleading information in relation to the risks, CIB’s advisory status or Harlequin Property.”

  24. FOS rules poor advice in raft of new Harlequin claims
  25. Noose. Tightening

    Wonder when the Ames family will be implicated. Let’s be clear about this, they still have over £250k in outstanding directors’ loans which need to be repaid.

  26. Karma

    Not long,before the Ames family pay the price.
    Matt Ames is pretty much stuffed for many years, fraud, being a convict and bankrupt not good for your CV 😉 lol

    The same awaits the other family members.

  27. Retribution.

    The ‘Family’ can’t get away forever giving investors and the authorities two fingers – it has caught up with them, always was going to happen.

  28. Vertically Challenged

    Maybe they’ll need some Yellow Pages to stand in the dock?

  29. anon

    I always thought Dan looked a right schlump in this photo.

  30. Fat Matt and his golf buggy

    Looks like fat, like Matt

  31. Say Cheese!

    There’ll be some more “official” photos coming soon enough. I can’t wait to see them.

    Do mug shots get released publicly in the UK, like they do in the US?

  32. How the mighty have fallen

    stokesentinel co uk/Port-Vale-Harlequin-s-new-travel-firm-provide-investment-cash/story-12508935-detail/story.html

    “DAVE Ames has revealed he may not choose to invest £500,000 into Port Vale through Harlequin Property, the club’s first-team shirt sponsor.

    The Harlequin chief insists he is still on track to invest in Vale, despite it now being more than nine months since he first outlined his firm’s plans.”

    Ames could invest the cash from one of his newest companies, HQ Worldwide Limited, formerly known as HQ Travel Ltd, one of Ames’s newest concerns.

    He explained: “We’ve set up a new company in the UK called HQ Worldwide, which will be a tour operator like Thomas Cook.

    “It has been set up to help market our hotels in the Caribbean, and it may be the case that this company is used to back Vale.

    “There are a number of different ways and opportunities to do of doing it, but that doesn’t delay what we’re doing.

    “My financial people will decide as to where the money is invested from.”

    Hmm I think we all know where the money came from. PENSIONS.

    Remind us whether you made this “investment” Dave? Maybe you could have spent this £500,000 on building some units, along with the £1.4m you spent on two planes, or the £6.2m you spent on litigation?

  33. Anonymous

    Harlequin to make returns as promised? What a laugh.

  34. Leaky Squeaky mole in the bunker

    Ask The GV about the recent IP discussions……

  35. Anonymous

    Talking of where the money went, does anyone remember Kim Withey and Invest5star?

    I just looked at her blog and the latest one (quite old now and before she ran for cover) advertises an “excellent guide to the seven most common investment mistakes”.

    Listening to Kim Withey must rank at number one surely?!

  36. Bitty, so macho!

    Dan Ames seems a little preoccupied at the moment, I was told the stress is getting to him and his Mummy.

    He has alway been the weaker brother, unless it’s via email, then he can be so macho…

    Back to the Post Office lol

  37. Blond Bitch done well

    The coiffed and fragrant Kim Withey of Invest Five Star and her luffly hubby Mike did very well out of selling Harlequin and took huge commissions. The Witheys invested in UK property (unlike their clients who they persuaded to invest overseas ) and they did VERY WELL.

    I reckon that they are now so rich that paying back their Harlequin victims (when their time comes) will not cause them too much strain or pain.

  38. RL regional sales manager

    All you need is ten investors and RL will take it on.

  39. Anonymous

    So it’s 6+ years after some deadlines were broken. Are Harlequin paying returns? NO. Another lie by Storey and his friend Stenning.

  40. My new car? My flash holiday?

    I’m happy, I’m a SIPP investor, I will get my money back and then spend it on a new car.

    I have Ames to thank for liberating my pension.

  41. Solvent my arse

    Its just a matter of time before Harlequin is formally in liquidation, they can’t continue to limp along; it will happen for sure, but when is anybodies guess.

  42. Paidrag O'Halloran

    I brought down the entire Harlequin “empire” hahahahahahahah what a sorry mess I’ve left you all with now.

    I’m a millionaire because of the money I stole and don’t have to pay back a penny!!! SFO ain’t looking at me. No sir! I hear Robert Storey’s cabin is going to be washed away by all the shit I left in the drains. Toodle pip Roberto! Have fun sunshine!

  43. leaky Squeaky mole in the bunker

    It is, but it’s just not been made public.
    Just making the long list of people to blame 😉

  44. Anonymous

    Which is the bigger untruth?

    harlequin is going from strength to strength


    harlequin is about to call in the insolvency practitioners

  45. Anonymous

    The second statement makes no mention of Friday so I repeat, which is the bigger untruth.

    I presume you would still be calling the poster who mentioned Friday a complete liar even if the IPs were brought in next Monday

  46. Anonymous

    Wonder if Storey is such a tough guy away from the keyboard?

  47. Anonymous

    harlequin is going from strength to strength

    This is the bigger lie. HMSSE already went to the insolvency practitioner, so it’s actually TRUE that “Harlequin” is in liquidation. Unless of course “Harlequin” is referencing another company selling off-shore property and having taken in over £400m only produced 300 units of the 9000 it promised?

  48. Croziers cock up

    Wow, her poor clients (Cough cough) looks like they have been sucked not once, but twice.
    If I were a betting man and to think they paid her, and will be paying the Goblins costs too.

  49. Anonymous

    But “Harlequin” is already absolutely bust isn’t it? Wasn’t HMSSE liquidated and therefore Harlequin stopped trading? What company is left to be liquidated? Are we talking about the Caribbean ones, for which no accounts have been filed for god knows how many years? So all that’s left “trading” after £400 million of investor funds were taken is a shoddy, circa 100+ villa resort (plus, supposedly, some rooms in a half constructed tower block).

    Someone shoot Ames, please. The SFO clearly aren’t going to stop him scamming and bullsh***ing. Shoot him. I’ll say a prayer.

  50. Can a CE High-Church type get a “fatwa” issued

  51. Anonymous

    “What” is solvent.

    Precisely what company is solvent. Name that company please.

  52. Anonymous

    I’m sorry, maybe the Harlequin trolls missed my post.

    Please can you name, precisely, the Harlequin company that is solvent?

    Perhaps this is the company to which the latest investors being asked to hand over money are to make their payments? Name please? Presumably the company has a bank account (not a UK one, of course)?

  53. Anonymous

    Why did Indigo Dive leave BB…not getting paid..

  54. Anonymous

    Who is raising the defunct “not insolvent=solvent” garbage line again?

    If the quote from the FSCS is accurate then they did not say “Harlequin is not insolvent” they said “the FSCS does not regard Harlequin as insolvent”.

    As has been said umpteen times, this can simply mean that that have no view either way and regard them neither as solvent or insolvent. It most certainly does not confirm solvency by any stretch of a desperate imagination.

    I do not regard my next door neighbour as attractive. I do not regard my next door neighbour as unattractive. Both true statements . I have no opinion either way about whether they are attractive or not.

    Now please don’t keep pretending that the solvency question has been settled.

  55. Anon

    Whoever said that “not insolvent = solvent” is trying to pull a lawyer trick, but aren’t legally trained (or minded), so they can’t do it.

    What you’re saying is equivalent to “not black = white”. Or “not guilty = innocent”. It doesn’t wash, and you need EVIDENCE to back it up.

    I have yet to see any evidence supporting the notion that the Harlequin RDC’s are solvent. Indeed, BB was built with monies from those RDC’s, which means that it has outstanding debts in the millions on its balance sheet. With all of these liabilities, and not comparable assets to match, the only interpretation we have is that the Harlequin “group” of non-legally connected companies is, indeed, insolvent. Again, this was pointed out in court by James Baker.

  56. Croziers cock up

    What muppets, not beating their chests with victory now are you?

  57. Anonymous

    So what is the name of the company that is solvent? Seems to be a difficult question for the Harlequin troll to answer. Maybe he’s waiting for confirmation from the Head Office staff in Basildon, in the building that has been put on the market. What company is paying those staff, and what company owns the building? Maybe that company is insolvent hence the sale of the premises.

    Dave Ames obviously isn’t insolvent since he paid himself and his family handsomely, but with so much inter company debt, decimation of income following the failure of the sales arm, various liquidations (or “restructuring”), liabilities of hundreds of millions of pounds due to breach of 97% of all contracts, it’s difficult to imagine any of Ames’ firms being solvent. I can see why the FSCS were so ambiguous.

  58. Anon

    The ambiguity arises because none of the RDC’s have entered formal insolvency procedures. Therefore you cannot legally describe those companies as “insolvent”. It does not mean, however, that they are solvent.

  59. Anonymous

    @ anonymous 8.00am

    my point doesn’t rely on the subjectivity of the statement. It works equally well with an objective statement and it is mainly applicable to a situation where the person making the statement has insufficient evidence to make a call either way.

    I don’t regard my brother’s business as solvent. I don’t regard my brother’s business as insolvent. I simply don’t know if it is or it isn’t. I am pretty much sure that this is the position of the FSCS. How on earth could they be sure the rag-tag set of companies involved are solvent or not when most of them haven’t posted statutory financial returns for years?!

  60. Sipp Sipp Sipping along

    He can’t pay me my money back, my contract states he should, therefore insolvent. But, I’m gonna take it from the FSCS.
    I don’t care.

    They will all end up like Matt.

  61. Fall from grace

    It’s just a slooooooow car crash, but it will happen.

  62. Anonymous

    Wonder how long Ames Snr will get? He’s the main culprit and will hopefully get 25 years

  63. Fall from grace

    Does it matter if Harlequin is solvent or not?

    No finance, and Dave has a buyer, he said so, it must be true.

  64. Hiram Abiff

    I have a SIPP claim, so the Solvency issue is not one I’m concerned about. I strongly suspect that Mr. Ames is considering some sort of liquidation process, what other choice does he have?

  65. James Baker FCCA

    Click to access witnessstatementfinalon16414.pdf

    James Baker, Ames’s accountant and a director of the Baker Clarke Partnership, produced this in the Davies litigation. He clearly states that the “Harlequin” companies controlled by Dave Ames are valueless and that their liabilities exceed their assets.

    S 123 Insolvency Act 1986 defines insolvency from a UK perspective

    (2) A company is also deemed unable to pay its debts if it is proved to the satisfaction of the court that the value of the company’s assets is less than the amount of its liabilities, taking into account its contingent and prospective liabilities. This is known as balance sheet insolvency.

    The test in St Vincent, St Lucia and Barbados is that a company is insolvent if “the realisable value of the assets of the company are less than the aggregate of its liabilities and stated capital of all classes.”

    You can draw your own conclusions as to whether “Harlequin” is insolvent or not.

  66. Hiram Abiff

    Looks insolvent to me.

  67. Anonymous

    @ anonymous 11.13am

    This has nothing to do with my neighbour or my brother as these were just examples to make a point. You know that full well or you are more stupid than I supposed.

    The point is that the FSCS could say that they do not regard Harlequin as insolvent and they also do not regard Harlequin as solvent and be quite correct in both these statements. Saying both these things together simply says they don’t have a clue either way.

    Would you care to confirm that all the Harlequin companies are unequivocally solvent ?

  68. Anonymous

    So do the FSCS have a clue to the value of Harlequin? Under pressure they changed it back. Perhaps with the pressure being put on them by the IFAs who are being shafted under the compensation scheme, they might change it back again. Believe me Anonymous you are the stupid one from bringing 3rd parties into a post to make a point which has no relevance. The point is the FSCS DID say they regarded Harlequin as being insolvent, a clear statement, and then changed their minds. The opposite of insolvent is solvent, not maybe solvent, or perhaps a little bit solvent or we cannot make our minds up. It’s a clear statement. Would you care to confirm that Harlequin is insolvent? Notice the word Harlequin there, the FSCS terminology, not mine.

  69. Anonymous

    Sorry Anonymous but you don’t have the rules of formal logic on your side.
    You’re wrong plain and simple.

    Go and look up formal logic and learn something of value.

  70. Anonymous

    What a state to be in, where Harlequin’s primary defence of itself is the fact that the FSCS clarified that they could not state Harlequin was insolvent. The fact that Harlequin is unable to prove its solvency further confirms its pathetic state. I predict the troll will state that Harlequin can prove its solvency (whatever “Harlequin” is now) but choses not to – we’re used to that level of professionalism and credibility from Harlequin’s representatives.

    Crawling on its knees, or slithering on its belly like a serpent. Someone shoot it and put it out of its misery.

  71. Hiram Abiff

    They didn’t change the value of the investment from zero, insolvent, zero value,who really cares?

    Harlequin is knackred.

  72. Hiram Abiff

    Why has Mr Ames not made a statement regarding the solvency, pretty simple thing to say, unless of course the are insolvent?

  73. Anonymous

    Well it’s blindingly obvious why the officers of the company won’t go on record stating that they are solvent.

  74. Go and look up the meaning of trolling and learn something of value. If you run out of constructive argument attack the poster. Typical anti HP thug.

  75. Candidate

    If Mr.Ames sells Harlequin does that mean the new owner will honour my contract? Will we get our return? Will our interest payments start again?

    This is such a terrible worry.

  76. Anonymous

    “Typical anti HP thug.”

    I find your assertion that us anti-Harlequin posters are “thugs” to be repugnant. I believe YOU are the thug. At no point AT ALL have you ever backed up any of the provocative claims which you seem to think confirm that your beloved Ames is devoid of any responsibility for what he (hasn’t) done.

    Not only this, but when pressed to provide supportive information of your claims – which are completely unfounded – you retreat into your sensitive little world of claiming you’re being attacked by “thugs”.

    Perhaps if you demonstrated why Harlequin is solvent, opposed to just alluding to the FSCS’s ambiguous “message” stating that Harlequin is “not insolvent”. I may be “not fat”, but that doesn’t make me fighting fit, does it?

    You don’t know the meaning of thuggery mate. If you think people objectively questioning what is actually your opinion for facts as being “thugs”, you’ve got a big shock coming.

  77. I think you will find that the expression “thug” was first used to describe any poster who was not anti HP a while ago. As an anti HP poster “you” reap what you sow. Did you object when it was used to describe anyone who was not an anti HP poster? I very much doubt it so don’t come on here with your self righteous postings. Perhaps you are too sensitive for a forum such as this.

  78. Anonymous

    I sure hope Harlequin reap what they’ve sown (misery).

  79. Google “the opposite of insolvent” Post on here what you find mr sensitive person. Post the answers, there’s a challenge for you.

  80. Anonymous

    Harlequin employee, i.e. Anonymous @ 4:07pm, back to the issue if you can manage to avoid diversions discussing whether you are a thug or not.

    Do you think Ames’ buyer will be swayed by Ames’ refusal to provide evidence to confirm solvency and quash the social media rumour mill, or does the buyer know about the insolvency? Admittedly, one would have to be pretty stupid not to realise liabilities outweigh assets; just look at Ames’ accountant’s witness statement used for his defence in court. Ames basically said “Look at this, all my companies are insolvent, and here’s a witness statement from my accountant confirming this.” So I guess I’ve answered my own question and saved you the bother. The “buyer” knows all of Harlequin is insolvent from evidence provided by Ames previously.

    If for once Ames is speaking truthfully about a buyer (I know, I know, but stay with me on this), he certainly isn’t doing much to improve his online PR. Are you Harlequin’s online PR campaign? Oh dear!

    Do you know when Ames is to release the catalogue of facts to back-up his accusation that the RL DD was strewn with errors? Again, this lack of substantiation of Harlequin credibility doesn’t seem to be doing Ames or Harlequin PR any good. It’s almost as if Ames wants this to fail (or continue to fail), what with you representing Harlequin online, the unchallenged RL DD and the failure to state solvency.

    What are your thoughts on Ames’ agenda?

  81. State of darkness.

    To sell the assets, get a special thank you for doing so, blame all and sundry for his own incompetence.

    That’s about the level of it.

  82. Anonymous

    According to WordHippo, here are what the opposite of insolvent means:

    “What’s the opposite of insolvent? Here’s a list of antonyms for this word.
    solvent, rich, wealthy, moneyed”

    I am presuming you are trying to assert that the FSCS’ message about Harlequin “not” being insolvent, they will be the opposite of such, thus implying they will be one of the above words.

    If this the case, let’s see whether Harlequin fall under this bracket:

    1. rich
    It seems to me that Harlequin could be classed as “rich” if you removed the £400m+ of outstanding liabilities.

    2. wealthy
    It seems a select group of Harlequin employees (namely the Ames family), and some agents certainly became wealthy from the promotion of Harlequin’s products. I don’t hear any of the investors telling the world about their returns though. Does that mean they’ve built what they promised?

    3. moneyed
    Considering Harlequin’s continued refusal to continue construction, we can only assume the company has no funding for construction. Therefore, I would not say they are “moneyed”.

    4. Solvent

    “DEFINITION of ‘Solvency’
    The ability of a company to meet its long-term financial obligations. Solvency is essential to staying in business, but a company also needs liquidity to thrive. Liquidity is a company’s ability to meet its short-term obligations. A company that is insolvent must enter bankruptcy; a company that lacks liquidity can also be forced to enter bankruptcy even if it is solvent.”

    So it seems that a company has to be able to meet its long-term financial obligations in order to be called “solvent”. Let’s see if Harlequin can do this:

    Known liabilities:

    1. Breached contracts (~90% of contracts in breach. ~90% of deposits are able to be requested to be returned. 90% of £400m is £360m).

    2. Ongoing interest payments. Unknown value.

    3. Construction of further resorts. BB had £100m invested into it (according to RL’s spreadsheet). The minutes from the Ames meeting suggested that H Hotel would need at least £7m more on top of the £7 already invested to even get construction going. A further £5 would likely be needed to “launch” (guess). Other hotels aren’t even on the schedule.

    4. Current resort operating costs. Ames’ minutes stated that BB was only just breaking even, if not making a small loss. Thus any returns which the 3 completions will see will be threadbare to say the least. Blu was said to be making more consistent profits. Thus it is expected that although the resorts may seem to be a sizeable asset, their long term financial commitments may be unattainable.

    5. Resort maintenance. Unknown value.

    6. Litigation. £6m has already been spent on Paddy case. More on other useless litigation.

    As per the James Baker document, and with the assertions above, I would certainly say that Harlequin’s companies are not solvent. Does this mean they are “insolvent”? According to law, no, as they are not part of any insolvency procedures. To say that Harlequin is “not solvent” is not the same as calling it “solvent”.

  83. Leonard Curtis

    Are you suggesting the GV will sell his companies (our assets) and get a under the table backhander? That would cause a little bit of investor upset,especially as the new would have managed to shed the investor liabilities.

  84. Leonard Curtis

    newco …. my typo!

  85. Has anyone figured out yet why I am a “blue anonymous” because
    I am definitely not the 4:14 poster…

  86. Anon

    Leonard Curtis, your assertions that a new company would be able to relieve itself of investor liabilities is false because none of the contract holders are “investors”. Investment is the process of purchasing a security over an asset-base.

    All Harlequin’s contract holders are customers. They are not investors as they own no part of any RDC of the “Harlequin Group” (as Ames likes to call them). This means that when liquidation occurs, and it is but a matter of time, any contract holder will be simply kept as an unsecured creditor. The new company will therefore have no obligations towards the creditors.

    To prevent this happening, investors either need to take out Statutory Demands against the garden gnome in the Caribbean, or engage in litigation to seek charges over any land you feel entitled to. Failure to do this keeps your investment as exposed as possible.

  87. Anon – 5:18
    If simplicity is the true meaning of elegance then that was an elegant
    summation of just where “investors” stand… Bravo !!!

  88. Anonymous

    @ Anonymous 4.14pm

    The opposite of insolvent is indeed solvent. You are quite correct.

    The opposite of “The FSCS do not regard Harlequin to be insolvent” most assuredly is not, “The FSCS regard Harlequin to be solvent”.

    I’m sorry if you fail to understand the rules of formal semantics but that doesn’t change that fact that you are WRONG! Plain, simple and undeniably wrong.

    It’s like arguing with trained chimps in here.

    see here for enlightenment


  89. Harlequin is insolvent, based on Mr. bakers statement.

  90. UGLE

    It’s all coming together nicely, we now have our Brothers in the FOS onside.

  91. Anonymous

    @ Candidate 3.06pm and Anon 5.18pm

    I think that a further complication is that purchasers generally paid funds to Company A but signed a contract with Company B.

    It seems to me that potential liquidators of Company A can say to purchasers, “I’m sorry but we have no contract with you” and liquidators of Company B can say, “I’m sorry but you never paid us to complete the work”.

  92. UGLE

    And of course, the FSCS and SFO.

  93. Snow White

    The best thing would be to remove Dopey and replace him with a reputable IP, this way he won’t be getting any brown envelopes.

  94. Anon – 5:57
    If the courts accept your logic wouldn’t that make both Ames and
    the financial advisors guilty of fraud. Ah blessed are the flimflammed.

  95. SFO

    That would be why the SFO are involved 😉

  96. Ian Richardson, a jolly decent chap.

    I’m waiting.

  97. @anonymous 5.47 there you go again being an Internet thug. Only an other chimp would try and converse with a “trained chimp”. Your words, not mine. Your really let yourself down with your childish rhetoric. That’s why your assertions are impossible to be taken seriously.

  98. Anonymous

    @ Anonymous 6.04pm

    I don’t think that this alone would make the companies or their officers guilty of fraud but it would make the purchasers guilty of not taking proper legal advice before entering into a contract. No solicitor would countenance allowing a client to pay Company A and form a contract with Company B registered in another jurisdiction. I’m really sorry that novice investors were the target of the sales pitches and most people seemed happy to overlook irregularities that caused experienced investors to run a mile.

    Let’s face it if the risks were really as low as the marketing material suggested and the returns were really going to be that high, the man on the street would not have got even close to making a direct investment of this kind. Institutional investors representing pension funds and investment banks would have snapped these up in an instant. The fact that they didn’t says it all I’m afraid.

  99. Anonymous

    @ the lodge of the ape man.

    Point out the error in the logic then and I will happily concede the point to you.

  100. “It’s like trying to converse with trained chimps in here” is not a logical statement. Have you ever conversed with a trained chimp? Do you have experience in this field?

  101. Anonymous

    Well that doesn’t really define the logical inconsistency in the argument over the statements in question.

    Let me put it to you again one more time.

    If I say to you in this post, “I do not regard you to be a woman” your logic says that I must therefore regard you to be a man.

    But I say that your logic is flawed.

    I could easily say to you, “I do not regard you to be a man” and be logically consistent with my first statement. Taking both of these statements together reveals that my actual position is to regard you neither to be a man nor a woman and therefore shows that I am, in fact, not able to say with any certainty whether you are male or female.

    I am sure that the FSCS could say in all truth and honesty, “We don’t regard Harlequin to be insolvent’ AND “We don’t regard Harlequin to be solvent”.

  102. Tubal Cain

    Easy way to resolve this, Dopy Dave needs to answer the question about solvency.

  103. Bo..

    And the mystery buyer.

  104. Nope your logic is flawed. You assume in your example there is only 2 options, either man or woman, but that is not the case. You need a better example.

  105. But the FSCS did not say that did they. 3 months ago they said that Harlequin investments were worth £1. Then after pressure from RL they changed that valuation. What’s the chance after pressure from the IFAs they change that again

  106. Numbers

    zero, its value.d at zero

  107. Anonymous

    @ anonymous 7.47pm

    Oh FFS everyone has the legal status of being a man or woman (even transgendered people) so please tell me what the third state might be.

    You are just being obdurate now.

    A further example.

    Statement 1 “I don’t regard your main house to be valued at a sum equal to or greater than £500k”

    Statement 2 “I don’t regard your main house to be valued at a sum less than £500k”

    Both of these are true statements that fully express my opinion on the value of your main house. That is, I do not know the value of your house and so regard it as either worth more or less than £500k.

    Just like the FSCS not being able to declare that their position on harlequin’s solvency. They don’t regard it as insolvent and they don’t regard it as solvent. They don’t have a clue like the rest of us because the information isn’t available for anyone to make that judgement.

  108. Anonymous

    I presume that the FSCS were presented with evidence sufficient for them to make the judgement that the investments had “junk” status and could reasonably be valued as worthless.

  109. Anonymous

    Probably something a solicitor’s letter threatening legal action and stating that the FSCS can’t prove the companies to be insolvent.

    It is well known that proving a negative is almost impossible and certainly impossible in this case because the companies have not put their financial records into the public domain in the way that properly run organisations do.

    So in this sense the FSCS could not possibly prove the companies to be insolvent because nobody has access to the information to make that call.

    If the companies involved had wished to play hardball and the FSCS had stood its ground then they would have been required to prove the insolvency, which is impossible given the above, and therefore been liable to pay damages. The legal process would have placed no obligation on the companies to prove their solvency in order to find in their favour and against the FSCS. Sadly, that’s how the legal process works.

    It is noteworthy that the FSCS chose not to word a statement, “The FSCS regard Harlequin as solvent”. Of course this is the grammatically simpler and clearer statement compared to the double-negative choice they actually made (if the source of the statement is accurate of course). So they instead said, “The FSCS do not regard Harlequin to be insolvent”.

    As described (ad nauseam) in the posts yesterday, the two statements in the previous paragraph are NOT THE SAME. The FSCS could quite easily neither regard the companies as solvent or insolvent at the same time. In fact it is hard to see how the FSCS could do anything other than regard the companies as neither solvent nor insolvent given the complete lack of information to make any judgement.

    As has been pointed out by previous posters the most reliable third party evidence available about the solvency of the companies comes in the court submission made to that effect. This seems to make the situation pretty clear.

  110. Doomed Dave.

    Not the most intelligent move, threatening the Government with legal action is it? The very Government that’s investigating your companies.

    Now the PM is involved, only a matter of time.

  111. Anonymous

    @Anonymous 7:01am

    FSCS never valued Harlequin investments at £1. SIPP operators assigned the “nominal” value of £1 to the investments held on behalf of their clients. FSCS was valuing Harlequin’s investments at full value (for their calculations) until they deemed it the responsibility of the agents, thus taking them under FSCS jurisdiction to cover the bill.

    The “zero” value came from the FSCS taking responsibility for the investment value. FSCS valuations are not necessarily a reflection of the value of the asset base (they are a compensation fund), but are part of their calculation of how much compensation they will pay out for a failed investment. If the agents are deemed responsible for the lack of investment value (IE the agent missold the investment, and now the investment has tanked), the FSCS are obliged to cover the cost. The length to which they’ll take the valuation is up to the FSCS.

    Harlequin is not the only “investment” which the FSCS is committing to paying for. Green oil & several others are also in the same bracket.

    “So what evidence do you think was presented to them to change from insolvent to not insolvent?”

    The FSCS are not in a position to comment on the solvency of Harlequin. That’s why they have remained ambiguous. Just as they didn’t have a position on the Harlequin “trust” which Ames said they “fully supported”.

    Harlequin are not insolvent.

    This is not the same as “Harlequin is solvent”. To say that Harlequin is solvent means they have all their liabilities underwritten either with their asset base, insurance, or an external financing partner. We all know Ames doesn’t have a financier, so make your own conclusion.

    The RDC’s are still in legal possession of their assets, BB & Blu are still trading and as per the P+L, the company may look relatively healthy. This would be fine if Harlequin sold slices of its resort portfolio as equity, but it didn’t. Harlequin “Property” was meant to provide ~6000 “investors” the ability to own a unit in an overseas hotel, yielding rental returns.

    To date, only 3 of the ~6000 clients have apparently taken title. Of those, we have absolutely no information on how much of their promised returns they’re receiving. Considering most contracts are in breach, the lack of finance, and the distinct ineptitude of Harlequin’s management of people’s money, all we really know is that Ames’ high water mark has been passed, and he’s on the slow agonizing downward spiral to obscurity & prison.

  112. Anonymous

    I am same Anonymous as 8:51am. I was looking up how to determine the solvency of a company, and found this:

    “Solvency measures a company’s ability to meet its financial obligations.
    Short-term solvency is often measured by the current ratio, which is calculated by dividing current assets by current liabilities.

    Longer-term solvency is evaluated using the solvency ratio, which divides the company’s net worth by its total assets.

    A business can be insolvent but still profitable. For example, a company may borrow money to expand its operations and be unable to immediately repay its debt from existing assets. In this instance, the lender assumes cash flows will increase because of the business expansion and enable the company to comfortably meet payment obligations in the future.”

  113. I don’t care I’m a SIPP investor. Works out fine by me.

  114. The old taken out of context routine

    Why has Ames not answered the solvency question and corrected the RL due diligence that was strewn with errors?

  115. Yellow back

    Has Bob Storey finally given up with his only mate, Ingham?

  116. Rl's National Sales Manager - Paul Walton

    Contact RL, so I get my share.

  117. Lodge of Redress

    W Bro Paul,

    Thank you for your hard work.

    If there are any other brethren wanting a no fee deal, please ask them to advance to us showing the sign and giving the word.

    We do not need to bother ourselves with Mr Ames because he is not in control of the redress.

    The redress is in control of those brethren in the FOS & FSCS.


  118. Anonymous

    Which is the better option for SIPP investors?

    Take 85% now plus the enhancement to bring your pot back up to the level it would have attained if it had been invested in something successful?


    Leave it where it is and trust that Harlequin will deliver on its promises in the year 20xx or 21xx?

    Tough call guys.

  119. Anonymous

    While the Pro Cret-Heads keep posting desperate straw-clutching nonsense on here the thread will stay alive with sane people offering a rational response.

    Just think of it as a service to humanity and right-thinking people everywhere.

  120. Anonymous

    Don’t mention it. You’re welcome.

  121. Fat Matt

    It’s time to get his turbo charged golf buggy ready, he will be appointed as the the GM at Buccament Bay.

  122. When I get out I won't need to be an ''Official Receiver'' of B wing

    His £10,000 PCM salary will be paid ‘off shore’ so the pesky official Receiver won’t be able to get his hands on it.

  123. Perhaps Laura Miller or John Austin might want to investigate the
    linkage between all the Harlequins and Belvedere Management,
    especially at the start-up.

  124. Anonymous

    More info Mr Blue Anonymous

  125. Anonymous

    Is Matt out of clink then?

  126. Dan's nose push out (again)

    Mummy and Daddy care, he is after all the favourite son.

  127. Dan's nose pushed out (again)

    Pushed out, getting like Ingham lol

  128. Dave Ames - who is that?

    David Ames has no control over matters anymore. He is simply reacting to each new crisis as it happens.

    Even if he does a deal with a 3rd party or places the companies into liquidation, he is doing so out of having no choice.

    The rock bottom prices to go to BB coupled with the drying up of investors prepared to trust him again by handing over more money, must mean cash flow is critically tight.

    As investors, your effort are best spent seeking redress. Redress will happen quicker and with less heartache than waiting around for Harlequin to deliver.

    It is now 2015 and every year finance has been promised. Nothing.

    The “banking error” has left many people in a financial mess due to the interest payments not being honoured.

    The due diligence we undertook is almost 1 year old and has not been challenged properly.

    It staggers us that anyone takes him or his companies seriously anymore. They have failed in every aspect of their operations.

    PHIG and the other “convincers” have nothing new to offer or to say. They are not stupid people. They know that the game us up. The only question is when time will be called on this saga.

  129. Dopey Dave

    Dave who?

  130. Anonymous

    “Are RL desperate for more customers” … coming from a Harlequin troll, that is hilarious! Harlequin and Ames are now the epitome of desperation.

  131. RL Fracking

    We have plenty of customers thank you very much.

    We have a gold mine.

    We are happy.

  132. Anonymous

    So this is desperation strategy number 415 being deployed by the pro-scrotes:

    Fill up the forum with a pile of old shite that most people will think is authored by others in the hope that it will distract everyone from the abject failure of the companies.

  133. RL's National Sales Manager - Paul Walton

    My commission, through the roof!!!

  134. General Meeting of Creditors re Matthew Ames (fraudster)

    Appointment of Trustees
    In the High Court of Justice

    No 3949 of 2014

    Matthew David Ames

    Of Address Unknown, Currently Unemployed and lately of Marimba, Goldfinch Lane, Thundersley, Essex SS7 3LT

    Birth details: 11 May 1975

    A General Meeting of Creditors is to take place on: 16 April 2015 at 14.00 pm

    Venue: At the Official Receiver’s office at the address stated below:—

    4 Abbey Orchard Street, London SW1P 2HT

    Meeting summoned by: Official Receiver

    The Purpose of Meeting: To appoint trustee

    Proofs and Proxies: In order to be entitled to vote at the meeting, creditors must lodge proxies and any previously unlodged proofs by 12.00 noon on 15 April 2015 at the Official Receiver’s address stated below.

    Paul Stewart, Official Receiver, London A, 2nd Floor, 4 Abbey Orchard Street, London SW1P 2HT, 020 7637 1110, LondonA.OR@insolvency.gsi.gov.uk

    Capacity: Trustee

    15 April 2015

  135. General Meeting of Creditors re Matthew Ames (fraudster)

    Just a little reminder for anyone who wants to attend, troll.

    40 months wasn’t enough

  136. BBaywatch

    I see that complimentary transfers from the airport to BB have been discontinued and guests are now being charged $100USD (way more than local taxi services) for this service. Drinks by the glass are free but by the bottle is apparently chargeable (surely they are not passing off low quality products as named brands??) Sure sign of a failing business regardless of whether it is solvent or not.

    Harlequin, redefining All Inclusive!

  137. More sure signs of a failing business

    From a recent TA review
    ‘We had a few issues with missing items such as tv controller which as the tv was on and no buttons to turn it off was a bit of a problem!! No hairdryer,no kettle or coffee machine, no guide to the resort and no toiletries!! We found that others we spoke to had varying issues of the same kind. Dispute asking at reception for these missing items we got remote and hairdryer same day, 3 days to get kettle but no coffee etc and 4 days for toiletries!! Never did get guide to the property!’

  138. People trafficker & Slum landlord

    Good business model. Bring the people in with the imported wood chip, make them eat it on route, then put them up in a slum house whilst pimping them out. Redefining pimping.

  139. Yawn.

    It must be time for some Nikki Crazier / Broughton / RL abuse?

  140. $100 taxi rip off

    $100 for a 30min taxi ride in a country that Ames calls third World amazing.

  141. Redefining cost cutting in the Caribbean

    The BB guests are still signing inflated invoices for meals. $US 150 for breakfast!

    And the departure tax rip off continues.

  142. $100 taxi rip off

    What’s the advantage for that? Skimming? Making a loss on paper? God forbid the GV is using BB as his own piggy bank.

  143. The sad life of trolls

    And what have the above comments got to do with HP selling their offices? More pointless trolling

  144. Basildon trolls

    If you look at the thread title you will see that the second part of the sentence is ‘Where is the £400 million taken from investors?’

    Perhaps you would care to address that instead of posting pointless comments and insults.

  145. Nicholas van Hoogstraten

    Good money in renting out slums to poor people, especially foreign ones.

  146. Deja Vu?

    It seems the wheels are falling off. How long before those pesky locals are squatting in Bob’s hut? Or even worse, a relation of one of the local politicians suddenly has clear title to it.

    It’ll be a repeat of when Millennium bank collapsed. The workers (who hadn’t been paid properly in months) stripped the little resort of anything they could carry within hours. Well connected individuals stripped it of everything else (where did those generators go?) The whole property is now owned and run by a correctly connected family.

    It’s interesting to note, William Wise got 22 years for his US$130M Ponzi scheme.

  147. The sad life of trolls

    Calling someone a troll isn’t an insult, it’s a fact.

  148. Anonymous

    @ Sad life of trolls

    As pointed out by a previous poster, it is perfectly acceptable to post on issues relating to the title of the thread which poses the question of what has happened to £400m of investors’ funds.

    I think you have now put yourself in the position of being the Troll of Trolls.

  149. Nicholas van Hoogstraten

    Slum landlords, great return on your investment, plus extra’s when the rent can’t be paid, if you follow my drift 😉 . Much better than investing with some deluded dwarf and a Caribbean scam.

  150. Anonymous

    When BB collapses in 24 hours it will be stripped clean of anything of value.

  151. The sad life of trolls

    What has paying for a taxi got to do with this thread? Nowt. Having said that I’ve been to 5star hotels in the past and the hotel has not paid for a text. A shuttle bus maybe and then it is usually arranged through the travel agent.

  152. Gone to Uncle's

    I think it was the inflated price for the taxi ($US 100 which is well over the top when compared to local fares) quoted by the Buccament Bay staff that was of interest.

    All the 5-star places I have stayed in sent a taxi or their own transport. Has the Goblin pawned the Bucc Bay Bus?

  153. Nicholas van Hoogstraten.

    Another scam, redefining taxi prices in the Caribbean.

  154. The Lodge of insolvency.

    How odd the GV has not corrected the DD strewn with errors, and declared his companies solvent.

  155. The Lodge of spelling

    @The sad life of trolls

    Why would a hotel pay for a text?

  156. Yes, but you said text, you muppet. Such things are very misleading and of paramount importance.

  157. Anonymous

    Well all the 5 star establishments I have stayed in have sent out a car and driver to pick me up from the airport so it isn’t that strange to expect that level of service.

  158. I agree with your comment, however, BB is certainly not a 5 Star resort. Unless of course you drink Rose wine from plastic glasses and reside in Essex, then alas, it would be considered very up market.

  159. Anonymous

    @ the sad life of trolls

    This thread is about trying to work out what £400m of other people’s money was spent on. It clearly wasn’t the wine cellar or transport for transfers from the airport.

    It’s so nice of you to act as thread police to inform us what we can and can’t discuss.

  160. Anonymous

    I don’t agree.

    You need to go through the items that successful hotel chain developers spend their money on and ask if some of the £400m has gone there.

    Help us out because we’re struggling to find out what they spent it all on.

  161. @The sad life of trolls
    Okay, what about the banking error? The £400 million, The reduced rates? The solvency question? The DD question? The SFO – can we discuss that?

    Lets ask again about the buyer, what will happen to the cash investors when they are sold out for a under the table deal?

    Yes,The sad life of trolls lets discuss all of the above.

  162. Anonymous

    @ sad life of trolls

    Ok let’s put it firmly back in the territory of the thread title about where the £400m has been spent.

    Rather than let everyone regurgitate ideas why don’t you come up with some brand new ideas about where the money has gone?

  163. Anonymous

    And I guess quite a few people will retire in poverty or get their homes repossessed because there is a rotting hull of a fake burnt out pirate shop languishing somewhere.

    I bet all those pensioners are delighted with that chunk of the £400m spend.

  164. Anonymous

    It’s a place where you buy pirates obviously.

    I however meant pirate ship as the context will have been clear. A bit like a text/taxi really.

  165. Better than agent commission

    Redress is upon us.

  166. Anonymous

    If I was about to lose my home because someone thought it was a great idea to have a sham pirate ship built somewhere in Indonesia and then cart it around the world before failing to build the required marina for it to be safely harboured and then allowing it to burn and then not bother to restore it, then I think I would find it of paramount importance too.

    So between us we’ve identified where a sizeable lump of money got washed down the pan. Interestingly I don’t think this is something that can be blamed on accountants, builders, politicians or anyone else for that matter.

    Anyone get any more ideas?

  167. Anonymous

    @ Anonymous 7.23pm

    You sound sure that the insurance paid out. How can you be sure the thing was insured? How much was paid relative to the sunk costs (no pun intended).

  168. Lodge of Redress

    More FSCS cheques arrived today.

    Fees will be huge and we’re still in our test cases lol

    Harlequin can’t do a thing 🙂

    That new house is getting nearer. Shame Dave & gang won’t keep theirs.

    Funny old world!



  169. Did he jump or was he pushed?

  170. Oh how the naive cling to what hope they have left

    lol so you like that I used “Harlequin”? I wonder if “Harlequin” is solvent? I’d like to find some accounts for this company Harlequin. Do you know where I can find them in public records? Oh. Jim Baker provided some stats for us. Seems it’s not a real company and doesn’t have any real audited accounts, and certainly isn’t solvent at all 🙂

    Getting SIPP victims off the books does indeed help. But having the FSCS coming on board doesn’t does it wise one?

  171. Harlequin (in all manifestations) was/is fraudulent. Fraudsters
    go to prison. What else needs to be said.

  172. And another thing

    While we’re on the subject of great uses of the £400m why not consider the circa £5m that was taken out of one of the Harlequin companies to buy properties in the names of the Directors and their family members!

    The auditors state that the family promised to ensure that the value of the properties was to the benefit of the company rather the individuals in whose names they had been purchased.

    How comforting for those on the edge of financial disaster that the family used some of their retirement funds to buy personal properties.

    Have those funds been returned to the investors or are they still in the hands of the family members?

  173. I have just heard on American TV (msnbc) that a new law goes into
    effect today in the UK that troll who spews on-line bile against an
    individual can be imprisoned for up to two years. I wonder if it is

  174. Anonymous

    That’s a law against people posting personally sensitive media which was created in confidence (IE nude pics / sex vid) without the other party’s consent. It’s called revenge porn.

  175. Well that’s what was described about certain women’s body parts
    on here.

  176. Anonymous

    It’s if you take a video of your girlfriend sharing an “intimate moment”, and then post it on the Internet without her giving you consent to do so, if it goes to court you’ll have a chance of going to jail.

    Online bullying has been a legal minefield for years and is nothing to do with the new law. The lurid posts about certain body parts would certainly be slanted to the bullying side rather than that of revenge porn.

  177. Too bad that’s the case. The outright vileness, nastiness and
    disgusting name calling, I guess you’re saying, is up to the
    webmaster to censure.

  178. I hasten to add to the above that BFP has done a decent job….

  179. Anonymous

    Probably, I’m not sure about prevention.

    All those stupid posts about Ingham / Broughtons is one guy. I suspect a pro-Harlequin supporter because they always seem to appear after important developments (generally negative to Harlequin) have occurred.

  180. – Anon 9:22
    I suspect that the vast majority of those who post on here agree
    with you 100%. It has been nice “talking” to a sane person.

  181. Better than agent commission

    Paul has a Bentley. I am having one just as soon as the next few redress cheques come.

    Thank god for Dave. He’s going to make me rich.

  182. not long now

    The Harlequin gravy train is now but a single jigger on a rusty, unkempt and overgrown track, with the goblin at the handle pumping wildly on his own hoping he can keep it going for just a little longer.

  183. Staff not paid at Buccament Bay (again)

    This from the latest Trip Advisor review.

    “…but when we were there [March 2015] apparently the staff hadn’t been paid, and there is serious cash flow issues apparently, which can cause supplier issues, we didn’t experience any inconvenience, appart (sic) from the fact that they had run out of one sort of steak so I had to pick another…”

    What sort of impression does this give? Is this company insolvent? Why they can’t pay their staff?


  184. Staff not paid at Buccament Bay (again)

    Why can’t they pay their staff?
    sorry typo

  185. Anonymous

    Well 85% of your investment back is much better than anything Harlequin look capable of delivering so don’t knock it.

    If staff aren’t being paid at BB isn’t that a form of not being able to pay debts as they fall due? Isn’t that another indicator of, what do they call it now, oh yeah, insolvency.

  186. Anonymous

    @ anonymous 10.16am

    You say that the staff have been paid and someone who has been staying there say that they haven’t.

    What credentials do you have to make your testimony more believable than someone who has just spent time with the staff themselves?

  187. Staff not paid at Buccament Bay (again)

    Just stating what a guest of BB said on a public forum.

  188. Staff not paid at Buccament Bay (again)

    Are you suggesting the reviewer is a liar?

  189. Staff not paid at Buccament Bay (again)

    So we can presume the wages were late but have now been paid. So that’s all right then.

  190. Anonymous

    lol “Ames is on resort”.
    That makes it all better. Father of a fraud & twice bankrupted lying dwarf.

    My contract has a deadline for 2012. It’s 2015; where’s my money?

  191. Sid

    My contract had a deadline of 2008 and is yet to be started. Good luck!

  192. Anonymous

    Or perhaps your money is part of the £5m taken from the company (not as salary or dividend it seems) to buy properties now held in the names of family members of the directors.

    It was a kind gesture of yours to do that.

  193. Anonymous

    Can you advise what involvement Dave had in Matt Ames fraudulent business please? Are you saying Dave Ames was implicated in the fraud too?

    Several ways actually:

    1. Matt’s fraud was based on his dad’s “business”. He said so.
    2. Daddy Ames offered fraud son £120k a year job at BB. Seems sketchy considering the resort is just breaking even
    3. Daddy Ames referred some people to fraud son’s fraud. Therefore, he played a part in it.

    If I knew anything about the goblin before hand, I’d have stayed clear of this mess. To tell people that “Ames is on resort” after he’s blown their cash on planes is insulting.

    Ames is nothing more than a pathetic joke. The sooner he’s in jail the better.

  194. Anonymous

    Paddy hasn’t been charged with anything either.

    SFO will surely be interested no doubt.

    As for letting of unsubstantiated rubbish, let’s take a look at “Dave”‘s tally on this front shall we:

    – SFO have stopped investigating (?)
    – FSCS fully support his trust (?)
    – All investor monies used wisely (?)
    – HMSSE liquidation has an extension (?)
    – Guaranteed returns (?)
    – Build deadlines (LOL)
    – Harlequin to recommence construction of H Hotel in March 2015 for opening in 2016 (?)
    – Inevitable success of WK case (?)
    – RL “ambulance chasers” (?)
    – $200m of assets in Caribbean (LOL)
    – Never taken a salary (didn’t mention the dividends)
    – BB & Blu “occupancy” rates (no revenue)

    I respect your opinion, but Dave Ames has questions to answer.

  195. Anonymous

    @ anonymous 12.14pm

    I completely agree. The money ending up with the builder is yet more evidence that Harlequin companies were not fit to look after investors’ money. They had legal responsibility for the money they held on investors’ behalf and so it should have been looked after with more care.

    I’m 100% with you on this one.

  196. BBaywatch

    So the GV has been on site has he? Perhaps to prepare for the Eastern Caribbean International Yachting Conference run by Quaynote? Now did they pay him to host it or did he pay them?

    I do hope that none of the delegates has the bad manners to ask awkward questions during Session Five, especially not when they come to the second topic on marinas and marina development! Unfortunately that’s followed the next day with – Session Six: The role of private aviation in developing the Caribbean yachting sector. ooops!

    Probably best for the little man to take that morning off. I see that there are plenty of breaks for scheduled refreshments, let’s hope the palates get jaded early on so that they can bring out the ‘by the glass’ tipples – except of course they will be served in plastic glasses. Still most days finish early so plenty of time to get over to Bequia for some proper R n R in a truly convivial setting.

    Pip Pip

  197. St George's Dragon

    Is there a session about the renovation of pirate ships?

  198. Sid

    Out of all of the speculated ways that my money could have been spent, I prefer the idea of it being spent on a lesbian soldier. That doesn’t sound so bad. Of course, I would have much preferred it to have been spent building my properties as per my contractual agreement with Ames, but maybe I’m just being greedy.

  199. Sid

    I know. I sometimes forget myself and often think that I am more deserving of the £200k I invested than the Ames family, who’s money it is now. I hate myself for being so selfish and inconsiderate.

  200. Matt's Chum in Hong Kong

    Why not ask Mr Nick Barclay if he knows anything about Matt’s assets? Does Matthew Ames retain property in Hong Kong, even though he is subject to a Bankruptcy Order?

  201. Matt's Chum in Hong Kong

    The sad life of trolls.
    April 14, 2015 at 5:47 pm
    Yep, just about sums up the irrelevance of some of the posts above. Matts chum in Hong Kong, totally meaningless posts about nothing.

    Oh, I might have struck a chord?

  202. Sid

    @The sad life of trolls, what do you expect? Do you really think Ames is so special that he can stiff thousands of people and not get any negativity in return? You must think he is the Messiah!

  203. Anonymous

    @ the lodge of solvency

    How on earth can you make that bold statement about the companies being solvent when most have not submitted audited accounts for years. The information simply isn’t available to make that call so you know its a bare faced lie.

    Keep trolling along though because it gives us all a laugh.

  204. Anonymous

    No the FSCS most certainly have NOT said Harlequin is not insolvent. Not have they said that Harlequin is solvent.

    They have said they don’t regard it as insolvent which is totally different.

    Face the facts, without audited accounts available absolutely nobody (including the directors and chairman) can make that judgement. It is a complete unknown beyond anyone’s knowledge.

  205. Dan Dare

    Has anyone of you thought about the new airport in St Vincent and how it will affect the local economy? It really is not looking good.

  206. Dan Dare

    6:31 you seem to have missed something else Bob?
    But anyway the ‘new’ airport is not looking too good.

  207. Anonymous

    @ the lodge of solvency

    So you boldly claim that the Harlequin companies are solvent. This means that they can pay their debts as they fall due. This means that they can refund any investor who has a breached contract.

    Can they do this? Yes or no?

    If yes then everyone will be delighted.

    If no then they are not solvent.

    A simple yes or no answer will suffice.

  208. Anonymous

    @ the lodge of solvency

    Oh so it’s become done to death now the question becomes unpalatable.

    It’s noteworthy that you have chosen not to confirm the solvency now that the implication is that investors would be free to receive their refund.

    The only alternative is that the companies are not solvent so thanks for confirming that to us at last.

  209. I would like to discuss the situation regarding Ames ‘selling’ Harlequin.

    Now of course, this is just speculation, but, what’s stopping the GG getting a ‘cash back’ from the new buyer and the new owner deciding not to honour any of the cash investors contracts?

    SIPP investors in the mind of the GG are no longer a problem.

    I doubt the new owner would continue the special little deals the GG has promised, some people still fall for the GG tails, sad really.

  210. Anonymous

    @ the real problem, 7.33am

    I am not sure how much, if any, of the contractual obligations of a company survive to be passed on during the insolvency/liquidation process. An insolvency practitioner would be able to advise us.

    I think the real real problem for investors is that they paid a company registered in England and Wales (HMSSE Ltd) but signed a contract with an SVG registered company. Even if the contractual obligations stay in one piece during a take-over I am not sure if the new company would have to honour the terms given that the investor never paid for the unit.

    You might say that HMSSE Ltd directors are culpable in a scam by allowing this to happen but, it would appear, that people handed over money for no return.

    Imagine the following scenario. You run into Sainbury’s and throw some money at the cashier and then run in an do your shopping in Tesco and walk out refusing to pay and tell them that it’s all ok because you paid Sainsbury’s next door.

  211. Completion Monies

    I would imagine several customers have paid Tesco for a ‘turkey’ but the funds were sent to Asda, but Sainsbury’s didn’t deliver it , but blamed Aldi. In the end it turns out Bernard Mathews had the money via an off shore company…….

  212. The Real Real Problem

    If anyone used a solicitor to check the contracts before they were signed then they should go after them for allowing this to happen. They should never have allowed a client to sign a contract with company A and pay company B.

    It’s exactly the same when a lawyer takes you through the conveyancing of a property purchase. They always make sure that the fund transfer and contract are with the person who legally holds title to the property you are buying.

    I’m not sure how many people used a lawyer to guide them through the process though.

  213. Anonymous

    @ completion monies

    Thanks for giving me a laugh this morning!

  214. Percival Stewart v Harlequin Properties (Caribbean) Limited et al

    Some interesting reading from a recent court case [March 2015] in St Vincent where Dave Ames is no stranger to litigation.

    Percival Stewart v Harlequin Properties (Caribbean) Limited et al
    In this case http:// close gap http://www.eccourts.org/percival-stewart-v-harlequin-properties-caribbean-limited-et-al/ Page 4 on the audacious delays by Ames in filing statements

    “Mr Commissiong deposes that Mr Ames lives in England and travels a lot globally making it difficult for him to be in Saint Vincent to testify. Implicit in Mr Commissiong’s averments is the notion that for those reasons, it was impossible or extremely difficult to contact Mr Ames, receive instructions from him, or arrange for him to sign a witness statement. I make the observation that the CPR permits a party to file and serve a witness summary if he is not able to provide a witness statement, and that a witness does not need to be in the jurisdiction to sign or attest either document.”

    Now this is totally the opposite of what lawyers and Ames claimed last October 2014 (in the group of 33 investors failed case) when the judge was told that the company was NOT run from Essex.

    http:// close gap citywire.co.uk/new-model-adviser/news/judge-rules-against-harlequin-investors-in-1-8m-court-case/a776127
    “The case did not centre on whether or not the investors were owed money, a point which deputy judge Nicolas Strauss QC noted ‘does not appear to be in dispute’. Instead it focussed on whether a UK court could wind up Buccament Bay, given that the company was incorporated in Saint Vincent and the Grenadines.

    While the investments were sold through Essex-based Harlequin Management Services (South East), which filed for administration in April 2013, Strauss ruled that Harlequin’s ventures including Buccament Bay were not run with ‘bird’s eye management from Essex’. He agreed that they were largely managed in Saint Vincent and the Grenadines and therefore this was the correct jurisdiction to apply for a winding up petition.”

    The fact that Mr Commissiong’s claim that Ames couldn’t possibly find the time to be in St Vincent for the Stewart case makes a complete nonsense of Ames’ submission to the UK court that the Harlequin business was entirely run from the Caribbean and therefore the UK court’s jurisdiction does not apply.

    Quite obviously both Affidavits cannot be true and both evade bringing Harlequin and Ames to account.

  215. Gareth Ward

    @Anonymous 8:16am

    In the case of SIPPs, it’s my understanding the point of which company was to be paid etc should have been covered by the SIPP operator. This forms the crux of the case RL and other regulated solicitors will bring against the SIPP operators. They simply did no due diligence.

  216. Anonymous

    @Percival Stewart v Harlequin Properties (Caribbean) Limited et al

    Another example of proving David Edward Ames is a liar, and is most definitely on the ropes. Tick tock.

  217. Anonymous

    Yes. Sadly it’s the tried and tested way of pushing unwelcome comments further up the thread by ranting on about female genitalia in a school-boy manner.


  218. Completion monies

    Lets take the following scenario.

    The GG sells and gets an untraceable ‘thank you’, the SIPP providers are all boxed off with redress, that leaves cash investors.

    The GG legally can do this, and I believe he will.

    The new buyers says tough, the contract is not with me.

    That’s an awful lot of very unhappy investors, as unsecured creditors.

  219. GG or CG

    I think, but correct me if I’m wrong, the first “Goblin” reference was as “Chief Goblin” rather than “Great Goblin”.

    Could I suggest we return to “Chief Goblin” as the adjective “great” tends to confer a sense of him actually being great at something.

  220. Who cares what you call Ames?

    Doesn’t really matter – we all know who it refers to.

  221. Bye Bye Bob.

    Looks like plans are a foot to totally stuff all cash investors. No wonder Bob has gone into hiding.

  222. The sad life of trolls

    There are no plans to sell, just usual trolling. But please enlighten us. This should be very amusing.

  223. The old Google test

    investors should understand that Harlequin has existing options to obtain finance and is currently considering a formal offer; however, Dave Ames will only accept the right deal for investors and the business. With public investigations ongoing and difficulty in passing the ‘Google Test’, the process of securing the right deal for Harlequin and its investors is not straightforward, but progress is being made all of the time. R Legal doesn’t care if investors lose everything; Harlequin does.

  224. Courting disaster

    Why was Ames ‘on resort’ this week?

    Looks like he has another little matter to attend to at the The Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court. This time Bally And Bally Investments Ltd v Harlequin Development (Svg) Ltd on Monday.

    An oral examination and it wasn’t for his pearly white teef.

  225. Gareth Ward

    “R Legal doesn’t care if investors lose everything; Harlequin does.”

    lol they’re right, RL doesn’t care if they lose everything. They don’t care because it should have never got to that position. Ames took people’s money without a financial partner. Now he’s paying the price. Be sure that it’s only David Edward Ames, Carol Anne Ames & the rest of the Basildon beavers whom the investors have to blame.

  226. Anonymous

    Following is a TA review from SueN about BB…this is a “senior reviewer ” with 95 reviews posted…..the place seems to be hanging on by threads now.Only people who get super deals overlook the “niggles”…true 5 star travelers would not put up with the many problems that folks are reporting.

    ““A Very Poor Experience”
    Reviewed yesterday NEW
    This is supposedly a 5 star resort. At best it is 3 star and this is being generous. The only reason I have rated it “Poor” rather than “Terrible” because they have some lovely members of staff who work at the resort – the only saving grace

    We arrived at the airport and were greeted by a very smart member of staff who took us to the resort in a old minibus. On arrival at the resort we were taken straight to our villa which was great. Unfortunately we had to give our passport & credit card (why in an all inclusive resort? – more on this later) to him but then had to go back to reception to pick it up, so we might as well have done this in reception to start.

    The villa looked good at first view but there was a lot wrong. Some examples:
    1) The shower was weak in pressure and luke warm at best
    2) The shampoo & conditioner were in large container but were empty
    3) The outside chairs by the jacuzzi had no cushions

    There are 3 restaurants & a coffee shop. We did not eat at the Indian one. At Jacks several items were always off. Staff were friendly but whenever you asked a question they never seemed to know the answer and had to go to ask someone else.

    Bizarrely there were prices on the menus which we have never seen at an all inclusive resort unless they were extras. This created a feeling that we were going to be charged although we were assured we wouldn’t be. At the end of every meal you have to sign for the bill – this was a real pain as one of the benefits of all inclusive is that you don’t have to wait for the bill. It also made you feel you were expected to leave a tip. All inclusive should that – ALL inclusive. We absolutely do not mind tipping for good service and would happily do that with cash at the end of the holiday.

    Getting a sun bed, as others mentioned, had to be done early. They were comfortable but of a very poor quality with stuffing hanging out of nearly all of them.

    I went to the Spa for one of our two complimentary treatments. Again there were prices and again I had to sign but I was assured it would not be charged. When we checked out we were also assured there were no extras on the bill. HOWEVER, on return we found our card had been charged for the “complimentary” treatment. After e-mail interaction this was refunded. However with exchange rate discrepancy we have been left with a charge of 3p on the card. What really rankles is we have had no apology for this to this date.

    In summary we were glad to leave and get to Barbados. Suffice to say we will not be returning!

    Stayed March 2015, traveled as a couple”

  227. Robert Storey

    Who cares about those stupid niggles when occupancy is near 100%?

  228. On Resort

    I’m sure the reviewer in question would have found solutions to her problems if she had contacted the owner, Dave Ames, who is currently “on resort” 😉

    We need to be clear that it’s a “5 star experience”, not a 5 star resort. Some niggles can be expected when you’re redefining fraud in the Caribbean!

  229. Anonymous

    @ anonymous 3.12pm

    The point is that this is not giving guests the 5* treatment. It has nothing to do with the 3p.

    If you don’t get that you simply don’t understand the demanding environment of a 5* establishment in which the guest is made to feel special at all times.

  230. Anonymous

    @ Robert Storey

    Any schmuck of a company can buy turnover of they set the price low enough.

    Sadly turnover does not a profit make and it would be very easy for a resort of
    100% occupancy to be losing money hand over fist.

  231. Anonymous

    @Anonymous 3:21pm

    This is excellent news – you can get David Ames to contact his lawyer in the Caribbean regarding his witness statement.

    Here is the post for your reference:

    “Percival Stewart v Harlequin Properties (Caribbean) Limited et al
    In this case http:// close gap http://www.eccourts.org/percival-stewart-v-harlequin-properties-caribbean-limited-et-al/ Page 4 on the audacious delays by Ames in filing statements

    “Mr Commissiong deposes that Mr Ames lives in England and travels a lot globally making it difficult for him to be in Saint Vincent to testify. Implicit in Mr Commissiong’s averments is the notion that for those reasons, it was impossible or extremely difficult to contact Mr Ames, receive instructions from him, or arrange for him to sign a witness statement. I make the observation that the CPR permits a party to file and serve a witness summary if he is not able to provide a witness statement, and that a witness does not need to be in the jurisdiction to sign or attest either document.”

    Pass that onto Dave for us? Cheers!!

  232. Will the rope be long enough?

    When this all over, I wonder whether Ames will actually get to court or maybe something will happen to him.

  233. Cancer

    I add you to that list Richard.

  234. Fat Yank

    Looks like Dave Ames has made a complete fool of himself again in court. Why this idiot has not been jailed is a mystery of life.

  235. Anonymous

    @ Fat Yank

    Let us know how he made a fool of himself.

  236. The Sad reality of the situation.

    Harlequin is insolvent and stumpy will sell providing he gets a cash back deal 😉
    Leaving the cash investors up shit creek.

    I hope the new buyer knows what a mess they are getting into.

    maybe they don’t know of the Google test?

  237. Anonymous

    Given a choice I think I would favour Erica being in charge of the companies rather than the current shower. She must have had a better chance of bringing the projects home than the existing “dream team” of amateur numpties that don’t even bother to write a contract with a contractor (the clue is in the name fellas) to protect investor funds.

  238. Troll

    Harlequin are to blame for many things.

    Firstly, why did David Ames willingly accept deposits for units which he had no idea he could deliver? His widely shared “business model” video showed him explaining that their model should provide rental income even without external funding. Now it’s obvious that he needs the money, why did he not have an underwriter in place if it was part of his model?

    Secondly, why did David Ames not provide any financial information to the people who provided deposits? RL aside, the Harlequin “group” never provided a victim with any sort of financial breakdown of the company, how it was growing, and where the next steps were headed. In a typical organisation, this would be known as minutes from an AGM, or simply just management account breakdowns.

    Thirdly, why does David Ames not come clean and explain where the money has gone? Litigation alone will have accounted for at least £6m (for the Irish case), so what happened to it all? Directors’ loans outstanding, properties in Dubai, freehold property in Basildon, a grand launch party – where was the money spent?

    Fourthly, we’re told that BB and Blu are going “from strength to strength” but are provided with perilously few pieces of information regarding them. How much have the resorts been generating? What % of that is profit? Surely as they are part of liquidation procedures, the “investors” should be partial to the state of the companies their savings helped build?

  239. Anonymous

    I don’t suppose Erica has posted on here for months and so someone has become a little deranged in their obsessive rants this morning.

    Now that is trolling at its worst because it is a personal attack with absolutely nothing to contribute to the thread discussion on where £400m has gone.

    It must be about pushing the unwanted posts up the thread (I always look at the stuff immediately prior to these rants because these are sure to be the most truthful ones). Someone has some pretty desperate anger management issues. I would hate to see the state of their keyboard!

  240. Anonymous

    And it painfully obvious that that wasn’t John Broughton anyway. The IP addresses for the 10.28am, 9.34am, 9.21am, 9.14am, 9.12am, 9.09am and 9.05am make an interesting read.

  241. Anonymous

    @ BFP

    Can you please cull any ridiculous posts that make reference to Erica, Ingham, washing, ironing, slang words for female genitalia please?

    One person is obviously having some kind of very public mental breakdown on here today and it’s kind of messy and not helpful to anyone.

  242. Sid

    £2910 was a lot of money in the 80s.

  243. BFP

    @ Anonymous. Yes, we’ll clean it up. Just home from working away. Cliverton, where are you old chap? I cannot do this all by the lonesome.

  244. Anonymous

    Many thanks BFP!

  245. -BFP
    I wonder just how many people who post on here realize that you
    all at BFP hold down full-time jobs. Believe me you are really
    appreciated by this poster and I am quite sure by others that do
    not belong to the loony fringe.

  246. BFP

    I’m back for two weeks before the next job. Cliverton is MIA but he’ll show up before then! 🙂


  247. God ! I hope that is not -missing in action – but in Miami…

  248. BFP

    Not in Miami. No doubt between the sheets entwined with some lovely Sheila.

  249. Bullies

    It’s interesting that when somebody made a negative post about Ingram it was followed by a plethora of vile, disgusting posts about being fat, various derogatory posts about women in general.

    I suspect one of the perpetrators got a little worried and asked for them to be removed, and I’m not referring to the one on the end of the misogynistic comments either.

    Nonetheless, I’m glad it’s desisted.

  250. Sportingman

    Has Ames sold it yet?

  251. Bluebell Wood

    I did hear a whisper this is coming on the market very soon……

  252. Scum

    He paid £475,000 for it in 1995, so it now worth £1.7 million he should sell it and give the money back.

  253. Bought with investor cash?

    Bluebell Wood, Brock Hill, Wickford, Essex, SS11 7PB

  254. Land Registry

    Bluebell Wood was bought by the goblin and the hag in June 2007 for £1,450,000.

  255. The view from the hill

    He won’t have his home for too much longer, don’t worry about that.

  256. Will Buccament bay run out of food

    There could be a major problem which Dave Ames will need to sort out.
    He has over booked the resort massively and 30,000 per day will arrive shortly.

  257. The view from the hill

    A bit like double selling the units, that’s why only a few completions.