“Real Estate Rescue”, Dominique Grubisa and DG Institute

Screen Shot 2018-09-23 at 10.10.00 am

I have not attended a DG Institute (DG) seminar, however I have concerns that her students (“investors”) may be entering into complex financial arrangements with distressed house owners, and may have a grossly inadequate understanding of the owner’s situation and options, and possibly of the risks they face themselves.

I maintain this view despite references in DG information to “helping” owners, ensuring the owner has done “everything possible to keep their home from being repossessed”, and being “fair minded and genuinely want[ing] to help property owners solve their financial problems while earning a fair and reasonable profit in return”.

I base my comments on:

  • some of the information provided by DG online (including videos),
  • a manual DG has provided to students in relation to the Real Estate Rescue program, and
  • my background in consumer credit & debt advocacy.

I’m not a lawyer, but I have worked in policy and executive roles in the community legal sector for over 20 years, mainly in specialist consumer and debt legal services.  Many of my colleagues are lawyers who specialise in credit, debt and consumer law, assisting clients by negotiation, in the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS), and in courts and tribunals.

Dominique Grubisa 

DG has been teaching property investment and wealth strategies for some years.  She says that after the global financial crisis she went from “many millions of dollars in wealth” to “many millions in debt”.  Continue reading

Advertisements
Posted in Property Seminars | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Hiring a car?   You’re driving uninsured!

  • ‘Damage waiver” in car hire contracts isn’t insurance, doesn’t cover some types of accidents and can leave drivers exposed to huge bills
  • Excess insurance may be of little, or no benefit, if the ‘damage waiver” doesn’t cover you
  • While many insurers sell “excess insurance”, I only found one which insured the whole vehicle.

 I don’t guarantee the accuracy of this information which is intended to provide general information only and does not constitute legal advice.  The information relates to Australia.

When driving a hire car, you are probably driving uninsured – whether or not you pay for excess reduction.  (This may not apply to car share schemes which have different arrangements).

Take Susan and Roy.  They recently hired a car in New Zealand[1], and made a point of paying for “excess reduction” cover.    While driving on a narrow road, Susan briefly lost concentration and the car crossed to the other side of the road and slipped into a ravine.

Luckily, no-one was hurt, but Susan and Roy found that they were liable for the full cost of the car (a write-off) under the car hire agreement because the “collision damage waiver” provided by the car hire company excluded any accident if the driver was charged with “an infringement/offence”.  Police attended the accident and Susan was fined for crossing double lines.

They were also held liable for the cost of recovering the vehicle, which was significant.  They couldn’t even claim the $4,000 excess cover because the ‘offence’ exclusion applied to that too.  Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | 5 Comments

Rick Otton – Federal Court Decides

On 11 August 2017, the Federal Court found that Rick Otton, and We Buy Houses (WBH) (referred to as “the respondents” below) engaged in conduct which was misleading or deceptive or was likely to mislead or deceive in contravention of the Australian Consumer Law.  

Update: The Court heard argument about penalty on 4th May 2018.  At 24 June, the court is yet to decide penalty.

In March 2015, after a co-ordinated investigation with NSW Fair Trading, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) issued proceedings against Rick Otton alledging misleading and deceptive conduct.  At the time, the Chairman of the ACCC said the ACCC was concerned about strategies promoted by We Buy Houses and Otton which “target vulnerable consumers who don’t qualify for bank loans or who are having difficulties meeting their mortgage repayments”.  Rick Otton is the sole director and sole shareholder of WBH.  Since that date, Otton appears to have ceased doing business in Australia, but has been promoting, and running seminars, in the UK.

An 8 day court hearing was held in 2016, and on the 11th August 2017, Justice Gleeson handed down the court’s decision.  (I understand that further decisions are yet to be made in relation to penalties, injunctions and costs).

Read the full decision 126 page decision here, or read on for a selection of excerpts: Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Lease Options in Court

A former Rick Otton student, and witness in his Federal Court case, lost a lease-option case in Supreme Court of NSW (Australia) in December 2016.  The case shows, once again, the risks faced by owners, buyers – and even ‘creative property’ businesses – when entering lease option agreements.

Karin Siekaup is a former Rick Otton student, and the only former student who gave evidence for Otton in defending a misleading and deceptive complaint brought by the regulator (ACCC) in Australia.  [Update: In August 2017 the Court found that Otton had engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct.  It appears that Siekaup’s evidence in support of Otton involved two property deals – the two mentioned here which “fell over”.]

In November 2016, Siekaup was involved in a court case of her own, Sieve-Storm v Murphy. 

“Siekaup is the sole director of Sieve-Storm Pty Ltd,” and for the purposes of this article I refer to her by name rather than to the company, noting that the judge said “her mind must relevantly be the mind of Sieve-Storm”

Summary

Siekaup entered into two lease option agreements for two homes with the same owner, and appears to have ‘onsold’ the properties to third parties via lease options.  Around the time Siekaup tried to exercise the options, and thereby buy the properties for the initial agreed amount, the owner claimed that the documentation didn’t comply with NSW law, and cancelled the option agreements.  Siekaup tried to claim compensation from the owner but the court confirmed that the owner had the right to cancel the options, that Siekaup wasn’t entitled to compensation and ordered that Siekaup pay the owner’s legal costs.  Continue reading

Posted in Rent to Buy, Rent to Buy Houses, rent to own, Rick Otton | Leave a comment

Lease Options

In this post I consider some examples of rent-to-buy houses (lease options) which were provided by the people who promote them.  Even these positive examples offer very little benefit to an unsophisticated ‘buyer’ in exchange for significant financial risk.

It appears that the only ‘buyers’ who have a hope of eventually owning a lease-option house are those who can afford to pay rent and put aside enough for a house deposit over 2-3 years – that is those who could own their own home without a lease option.

I have previously described some “creative property”  strategies, including lease options and outlined the risks.

What is a lease option?

A lease option is combination of a lease (property rental) and an ‘option to purchase’.  The ‘option to purchase’ gives the tenant the right to buy the property for an agreed amount before the end of the term of the contract (usually 2-5 years).   While some people in the industry have concerns about the use of lease options, they appear to be widely used.

The tenant pays a fee for the option to purchase.  The option fee is made up of an upfront “deposit” and monthly payments.  The total option fee may be between $20,000 – $70,000 or more.  Rent is paid in addition to the option fee.  The rent amount is unlikely to be below ‘market rent’ and is often higher.

If the purchase proceeds, the option fee (or sometimes just part of the option fee) is credited towards the purchase.

Problems and Risks

 The property price may be too high, or the increase in value too small, to give the tenant adequate equity to qualify for finance.  Within these short periods, property values can stagnate, or even decrease.

Some of the other risks for potential “buyers” are:

  • Paying an amount that often equals double rent, and paying rates and maintenance, may not be sustainable for the ‘buyer’;
  • The ‘buyer’ may not be approved for mortgage finance at the end of the period, which usually means the buyer will usually lose the entire option fee paid;
  • If the seller has outstanding debts, the house could be sold by creditors, and the ‘buyer’ may lose all payments made (lease options are sometimes promoted to sellers with debt problems, so it’s not unusual for “sellers” to be in financial difficulty).

The complexity of these agreements makes it easy for a seller, or intermediary, to exploit someone who hopes to own their own home.  Unfair elements of contracts may include:

  • above market rent (in addition to the option fee);
  • high option fee (both up-front payments and monthly payments);
  • only part of a large option fee may be credited towards the price of the house;
  • it may be foreseeable at the time of signing the agreement that the tenant will never be able to purchase the property.

Continue reading

Posted in Rent to Buy, Rent to Buy Houses, rent to own, Rick Otton, vendor terms | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

One more ‘rent-to-buy’ risk – property values

In addition to all the other risks associated with rent-to-buy/vendor finance deals, the ‘buyer’ must gamble on a minimum increase in property value over a short-term.  An examination of some historic property price fluctuations shows how high this risk this is.

Many lease option agreements are for terms of 2-3 years.  Many vendor finance arrangements are set for a maximum of 3-5 years (or financial penalties are imposed if they extend beyond this time).

The potential buyer will usually lose all money paid if a mortgage application is unsuccessful at the end of the term, resulting in a wind-fall for the seller or investor.  One factor that will influence a mortgage lending decision at the end of the rent-to-buy period is the lender’s valuation of the property.  If the property is over-priced and/or the value doesn’t increase significantly, the mortgage application may be rejected.  The “buyer” will lose everything and the seller will make a big wind-fall.

‘Rent-to-buy’ properties are often priced at a premium – often 10-15% above the seller’s (or intermediary’s) value estimate, but consumer representatives are aware of uplifts of up to 30%.

So, regardless of all the other factors that may influence a mortgage application (such as the consumer’s credit record, employment history, income and accumulated funds), an inadequate increase in property value is likely to kill the deal.  Depending on the contract  terms and price, an increase of between 5% and 15% per annum may be needed – or even more.

An increase in prices over these short terms can’t be guaranteed, let alone a large increase because property prices can be volatile within these short term frames.  Add to this that some of the locations where these houses are located may experience lower than average growth.

In five Victorian locations where houses have been the subject of ‘rent-to-buy’ or vendor finance deals, the average annual increase in median prices over 2004-2014 ranged from 3.8% to 5%.  However, prices decreased in each location over at least one year, and over at least a two-year period in 4 of the locations.  In one location (Craigieburn) prices decreased over a 4-year period from 2010-2014.

Look back further and consider five locations where these deals were done in the early 2000s.  Average increases in median prices in those locations over 1992 – 2002 ranged from 2.5% – 7.4%.  However, excluding the two years of highest growth, average median price increases ranged from negative 0.8% to 4.4%.  There were a number of years of negative growth in all five locations.  In two of the locations (Morwell and Wendouree) median prices had actually fallen between 1992 and 1997.

Further details about these price fluctuations  Continue reading

Posted in Rent to Buy, Rent to Buy Houses, rent to own, vendor terms | Tagged , , , | 7 Comments

Telemarketing, ‘Do Not Call’, and the The Property Investment Link 

Note: Optima Wealth Solutions is a property investment firm http://www.owealth.com.au which  shares a phone number with Optima Lending Solutions and Optima Homes.  It is not related to Optima Group, Optima Lending or Optima Wealth Management who do not use telemarketers.

Why do we still get telemarketing calls when we’re listed on “Do-Not-Call” Register (DNCR) – and is the regulator, Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA), doing enough to stop it?

Infotronics and Lead Generation

An overseas-based call centre, Infotronics, has been breaching the DNCR laws for years, calling people who are listed on the DNCR.  Infotronics makes “lead generation” calls – meaning that it sells the personal details of consumers (obtained during the telemarketing calls) on to property investment businesses in Australia.

Infotronics identifies itself by different names, including ‘IMS’ and ‘Payless Solutions’.  It doesn’t identify the name of the Australian business that might be the end-user of the information.

ACMA confirm that Infotronics appears “to make cold calls asking questions about the consumer’s personal, lifestyle and financial circumstances. Consumers often receive a further call advising that they have ‘qualified’ for a financial service and offer to forward their details to an Australian-based company for a follow up call or appointment.

I complained about ‘Infotronics’ in September 2013, and ACMA said it “..understands that Infotronics is taking significant steps to improve its compliance with the DNC legislation.”

When I complained about Infotronics again more than 2 years later, ACMA advised that “Infotronics is currently at the ‘warn’ stage of the ACMA’s DNC Register Complaint handling policy.

One might wonder how it takes more than 2 years for a problematic call centre to reach the “warn” stage, and how many thousands of calls will be made before it’s time for further action.  To be fair, it can be difficult for ACMA to enforce our laws against overseas call centres (even though our laws apply if they call Australians).  So surely ACMA should be taking action against the Australian property investment businesses, that for years, have benefited from the illegal conduct of ‘Infotronics’.

WIT Group, Optima Wealth Solutions, Accrue Property

Continue reading

Posted in Consumer issues - general, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , | 3 Comments