Search results

At the moment we only have two sides of the story. SISU have said they didn't know, Higgs have said they were told SISU did know. The key will be what the chap from the council says. He may say he told them verbally in which case its one persons word against another. He may say he informed them...

And that's the problem when Fisher keeps banging on about SISU never posturing, he can't then turn round and say well we didn't really mean it.

She's pretty much summed in SISU there!

I think so far SISU have said they weren't told and Higgs have said they were told by CCC that SISU had been told. I don't think CCC have said anything one way or the other yet. Of course we still need to establish if SISU were legally required to be told.

I wouldn't be too happy if that has happened for sure but I think the guy this is being aimed at should get a chance to defend himself before we all hang him out to dry! Lets be honest, someone involved in politics telling a porky wouldn't be the revelation of the century! Not sure why...

But that would be an issue between Higgs and CCC.

But again that could be a moral rather than legal arguement. Unless there is a legal requirement to tell SISU what was happened it can't really be that much of an issue. EDIT: and what if someone had told Labovich but he couldn't hear as he wasn't working for the right company that day :D

We don't actually know if SISU were told or not yet do we? SISU have said they weren't, Higgs have said as far as they know they were. Or have I missed something?

Morally I would say not but that's not what we're into now, we're into what is legally required.

Does a split between Higgs and CCC actually benefit SISU? Weren't they making out that everyone else was working together behind SISUs back to try and stich them up, if it turns out they don't get on then it would impact on that arguement. As for SISU being kept informed what was happening then...

Is this going to come down to one persons word against anothers?

No he's saying SISU never inserted a similar clause to cover their costs. He hasn't got the bit about Higgs costs yet.

2 questions. Didn't the rent agreement require the escrow to be maintained at a certain level? Also the money in the escrow didn't actually come from SISU or CCFC did it?

The thought occurs, if SISU are using good faith as an arguement how do they square that off with going on a rent strike?

Has there been any actual proof that YB were prepared to sell the mortgage to SISU for £8m or do we just have to take Fisher and Labovich's statements that they were as true?

Quite correct but equally you can't make the reverse argument that there was nothing for ACL to worry about if SISU become the owner of the loan as that is also conjecture!

A key point in this is if the new owner of the debt can vary the repayment terms. Lets say you owed Yorkshire Bank £100K on your mortgage and you were paying £750 a month with no problems. Bank of Tim then buys that mortgage, with say £75K remaining on it and tell you that want it all paid off...

Well given that ACL never missed a payment and are still in business why did YB suddenly become worried about their ability to pay at the same time SISU stopped paying rent and Fisher was telling anyone who would listen they were about to go bust?

Think we should setup a fund to keep Rob and Simon topped up with a supply of Greggs sausage rolls until the end of the court case!

Of course. But from the CCC / Higgs side they have, at least publically, appeared to remain open to this kind of arrangement, it is SISU who have stated there is no way they are coming back without ownership which appears to indicate it is their stance that has changed.