Showing posts with label broadbeach. Show all posts
Showing posts with label broadbeach. Show all posts
Wednesday, September 25, 2013
Oracle Gold Coast Losses
Virtually every purchaser off-the-plan at The Oracle development (now branded Peppers) on the Gold Coast has lost money when reselling. See article here.
Saturday, February 16, 2013
The Oracle Broadbeach
One trouble with off-the-plan marketing is that the apartments are often oversold. The Oracle at Broadbeach was marketed as a beach apartment complex, but in fact, is not that close to the beach and many apartments do not have good beach views. Even though the apartments are large, the values have dropped. Dramatically. Two examples:
Apt 2003, 2 bedrooms, now listed for $825,000, originally sold for $1,495,000 off the plan.
Apt 1605, 1 bedroom, sold off the plan for $710,000, resold in January 2012 for $530,000.
Here is another 2 bed listed for $800,000.
Apt 2003, 2 bedrooms, now listed for $825,000, originally sold for $1,495,000 off the plan.
Apt 1605, 1 bedroom, sold off the plan for $710,000, resold in January 2012 for $530,000.
Here is another 2 bed listed for $800,000.
Monday, September 3, 2012
Gold Coast less than $300,000
From the HTW Month in Review for September 2012:
"In Surfers paradise there are plenty of options for purchasers with $300,000 to spend, including older style units starting in the low $100,000’s and 1- bedroom, 1- bathroom units in modern highrises ($250,000 to $320,000). An example is Unit 709 in Wings residential which is a 7th floor 1- bedroom plus study with 2- bathrooms in a circa 2004 building that sold on 28 June 2012 for $250,000.
Just south of our tourism mecca, a semi-modern unit in a three storey walk-up in 2-bedroom, 1-bathroom configuration in Mermaid Beach/Broadbeach falls under the $300,000 category. An example is Unit 43 in Diamond beach South in Mermaid Beach which sold on 2 March 2012 for $300,000 - a 1994 2-bedroom, 2-bathroom lowrise unit with a floor area of 105 square metres."
"In Surfers paradise there are plenty of options for purchasers with $300,000 to spend, including older style units starting in the low $100,000’s and 1- bedroom, 1- bathroom units in modern highrises ($250,000 to $320,000). An example is Unit 709 in Wings residential which is a 7th floor 1- bedroom plus study with 2- bathrooms in a circa 2004 building that sold on 28 June 2012 for $250,000.
Just south of our tourism mecca, a semi-modern unit in a three storey walk-up in 2-bedroom, 1-bathroom configuration in Mermaid Beach/Broadbeach falls under the $300,000 category. An example is Unit 43 in Diamond beach South in Mermaid Beach which sold on 2 March 2012 for $300,000 - a 1994 2-bedroom, 2-bathroom lowrise unit with a floor area of 105 square metres."
Tuesday, August 14, 2012
Holiday Letting Agent Investigation
An interesting article in the AFR on 9 August (page 45) about StayMint (or Mint?) real estate letting agent, and how (it is alleged) they were renting out apartments on a short term basis, but not paying the owners for the rentals. It seems that the government is investigating. This is not a rare problem -- I have heard similar stories in the past about apartment buildings in Brisbane that are rented out on a short term basis, and holiday apartments on the Gold and Sunshine Coasts where the real estate agent or onsite agent pockets the money and tells the owner that the apartment is vacant. This same business manages Skyline in Brisbane.
See "Stay Mint Faces Complaint"
"The Queensland Office of Fair Trading is investigating holiday letting company StayMint, a wholly-owned subsidiary of listed property group Ariadne, following complaints from owners of a Gold Coast apartment block about financial irregularities. Fair Trading officers raided the StayMint office at a Broadbeach apartment complex, Carmel by the Sea, last Thursday and seized financial documents.... The owners said they had discovered people had stayed in their apartment but the stay was not recorded in the monthly statement to the owner, and the rent not paid."
See "Stay Mint Faces Complaint"
"The Queensland Office of Fair Trading is investigating holiday letting company StayMint, a wholly-owned subsidiary of listed property group Ariadne, following complaints from owners of a Gold Coast apartment block about financial irregularities. Fair Trading officers raided the StayMint office at a Broadbeach apartment complex, Carmel by the Sea, last Thursday and seized financial documents.... The owners said they had discovered people had stayed in their apartment but the stay was not recorded in the monthly statement to the owner, and the rent not paid."
Friday, June 15, 2012
Oracle Buyers Loose Appeal
A number of off-the-plan purchasers for The Oracle development at Broadbeach refused to settle. One reason they gave for their refusal was that Peppers purchased the management rights for the complex. The purchasers lost their appeals today. There were two decisions, Gough, and Walsh. See also Courier Mail.
"... there is little support for the conclusion that, in addition to the role played by the Oracle name in identifying the apartments to be sold and purchased, there was also a promise by the vendor that Tower 1 be known or described as The Oracle at the date of completion. If such a promise existed, it needed to be inferred and the inference, if it could be drawn, was far from obvious. ... For the above reasons, I would order that the appeals be dismissed and that the appellants’ pay the respondent’s costs of the appeals, including reserved costs if any, on the indemnity basis."
The main reason the buyers did not settle was because the apartments dropped significantly in value between contract signing and settlement. That is a risk of buying off-the-plan, and is not a ground to refuse to settle.
"... there is little support for the conclusion that, in addition to the role played by the Oracle name in identifying the apartments to be sold and purchased, there was also a promise by the vendor that Tower 1 be known or described as The Oracle at the date of completion. If such a promise existed, it needed to be inferred and the inference, if it could be drawn, was far from obvious. ... For the above reasons, I would order that the appeals be dismissed and that the appellants’ pay the respondent’s costs of the appeals, including reserved costs if any, on the indemnity basis."
The main reason the buyers did not settle was because the apartments dropped significantly in value between contract signing and settlement. That is a risk of buying off-the-plan, and is not a ground to refuse to settle.
Wednesday, December 21, 2011
Off-the-plan craziness at The Oracle
Here is an interesting but sad story about a teacher's aid, who signed an off-the-plan contract in 2006 to purchase an apartment in The Oracle at Broadbeach for $940,000, plus stamp duty. Unsurprisingly, she was unable to settle and then unsuccessfully sued the developer (Niecon) to get out of the contract.
"She explained that she did not have the funds to settle and that the matter had cost her $7,500 in bank guarantee fees. She explained that she had a mortgage of around $100,000 on her $300,000 townhouse, was in her mid-50s and earned about $550 per week as a teacher’s aide. She asked to be let out of the contract and explained the difficulties that she had in meeting the required deposit of $94,000. She explained that she had brought up her children without maintenance from her former husband and saw the investment in The Oracle as a way of finally getting ahead by using the equity in her home as the deposit."
In early 2010, before completion of the development, she listed the property for sale at a price of $1.28 million. "This price was selected because it would enable her to cover the purchase price, stamp duty and agent’s commission. However, the price of $1.28 million was unrealistic in the light of the global financial crisis and its impact on property prices, even though Ms Ryan had the hope that such an iconic building would not be affected as other parts of the market had been."
What a crazy thing for this person to do. Why would anyone in their right mind who was earning $550 a week sign a contract to purchase a Gold Coast apartment for about a million dollars?!
The Oracle - Developer Wins Lawsuits
The developer of The Oracle at Broadbeach was sued by a number of people who purchased apartments off-the-plan and then, after the market dropped, did not want to settle. The developer won the lawsuits, and the buyers have to pay significant damages to Niecon.
Interestingly, the judge's decision (which is long and complex) discussed issues about when a residential apartment building is and can be operated as a hotel or short stay letting operation.
"The contract provided that any authorisation of a person as a letting agent would be in the terms of the Caretaking and Letting Agreement annexed to the Disclosure Statement. That agreement provided for the entity appointed by the body corporate to operate a letting business, and to use certain common property for specified purposes. The letting business was not limited to long-term tenancies. Nothing in the Caretaking and Letting Agreement provided that the letting agent could not conduct its letting business so as to attract short-term tenants and holiday-makers. The letting business involved associated services commonly rendered in connection with letting lots in similar developments and “any other lawful activity.” This authorised the provision of services to guests occupying apartments, including guests staying for a short time who might require room service, a mini-bar and other “hotel-like services”."
"The fact that [the onsite manager] provides guests with certain “hotel-style services” does not mean that the tower has ceased to be a “residential tower” in the sense earlier described. The fact that some of the occupants are there for a short term does not mean that the tower is not a residential tower. The contractual promise of a lot in a residential tower relates to a tower used for residential purposes. The relevant provision distinguished the residential component from the retail component of the development. In its contractual context, a residential tower does not mean simply a tower for owners who are residents or long-term tenants."
Interestingly, the judge's decision (which is long and complex) discussed issues about when a residential apartment building is and can be operated as a hotel or short stay letting operation.
"The contract provided that any authorisation of a person as a letting agent would be in the terms of the Caretaking and Letting Agreement annexed to the Disclosure Statement. That agreement provided for the entity appointed by the body corporate to operate a letting business, and to use certain common property for specified purposes. The letting business was not limited to long-term tenancies. Nothing in the Caretaking and Letting Agreement provided that the letting agent could not conduct its letting business so as to attract short-term tenants and holiday-makers. The letting business involved associated services commonly rendered in connection with letting lots in similar developments and “any other lawful activity.” This authorised the provision of services to guests occupying apartments, including guests staying for a short time who might require room service, a mini-bar and other “hotel-like services”."
"The fact that [the onsite manager] provides guests with certain “hotel-style services” does not mean that the tower has ceased to be a “residential tower” in the sense earlier described. The fact that some of the occupants are there for a short term does not mean that the tower is not a residential tower. The contractual promise of a lot in a residential tower relates to a tower used for residential purposes. The relevant provision distinguished the residential component from the retail component of the development. In its contractual context, a residential tower does not mean simply a tower for owners who are residents or long-term tenants."
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
The Oracle Gold Coast
Oracle receivers have released a special new price list for local agents for Oracle apartments in Broadbeach.
Agents report that the new prices fit squarely into the current hi-rise market values of central Broadbeach at around $4200-4900sqm.
During the past week, it is reported that 12 Oracle properties changed hands on the new prices with around another dozen or so under offer.
Photos show an Ocean view from a one bedroom apartment in The Oracle.
Update from 15 December: "During the past 24 hours, 6 out of the 59 receivers stock has sold and 18 are on hold." [I suspect that the receiver has more than 59 apartments that are unsold, so this must be a trickled release.]
Agents report that the new prices fit squarely into the current hi-rise market values of central Broadbeach at around $4200-4900sqm.
During the past week, it is reported that 12 Oracle properties changed hands on the new prices with around another dozen or so under offer.
Photos show an Ocean view from a one bedroom apartment in The Oracle.
Update from 15 December: "During the past 24 hours, 6 out of the 59 receivers stock has sold and 18 are on hold." [I suspect that the receiver has more than 59 apartments that are unsold, so this must be a trickled release.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
