16th October 2013, 09:51 AM
(This post was last modified: 16th October 2013, 09:59 AM by Unitof1.)
Thing is barking where is the statutory requirement to search any HER for unevaluated archaeology. Most regs just mention scheduled monuments and sites of special scientific interest and these lists are kept by national quangos. This site does not appear to have been either. HER are arbitrary micky mouse public service jobs worth archive collections that should be in some museum or library. The underlying principle which this judge seems to have accepted is that a PEG would tell the buyer if there was any archaeology on the site rather than the principle that all buyers of sites should be aware that all sites have archaeology on them and the key question is what is the significance of the archaeology. This site had existing buildings on it. I have seen plenty of sites considered insignificant because existing buildings were in the way or it had been thought that the archaeology had been destroyed by the subsequent building. This judge is creating some president for caveat venditor in Scottish law and its kinda based on what the curators say is the significance of the site when a planning application is made. The judge mentions a pre-application submission to the planning authorities which created all the fuss. What could be significant is that it does not appear that any planning application was approved (on the grounds that they were carrying out evaluations) and I don't see how a seller can be made responsible for guaranteeing that a site will get approval.
behind it all is the bloody idiot banks, what would be interesting to know is if the sellers had anything to do with "helping" the buyers finance the acquisition.
I got this off the web. The buyers don't exactly come across as property developers as their principle business and we can wonder if they took out any insurance on their speculation.
behind it all is the bloody idiot banks, what would be interesting to know is if the sellers had anything to do with "helping" the buyers finance the acquisition.
Quote:First Scottish Property Services Limited is an Inactive business incorporated in Scotland on 27th February 1990. Their business activity is recorded as Dormant Company. First Scottish Property Services Limited is run by 1 current members. and 1 company secretary. 1 shareholders own the total shares within the company. It is also part of a group.
The latest Annual Accounts submitted to Companies House for the year up to 31/05/2012 reported 'cash at bank' of £0, 'liabilities' worth £0, 'net worth' of £0 and 'assets' worth £0. First Scottish Property Services Limited's risk score was amended on 10/09/2013.
Quote:Manorgate Limited is an Active business incorporated in Scotland on 12th March 2001. Their business activity is recorded as Retail Sale Of Carpets, Rugs, Wall And Floor Coverings
I got this off the web. The buyers don't exactly come across as property developers as their principle business and we can wonder if they took out any insurance on their speculation.
Reason: your past is my past