Header Ad Module

Collapse

Chris Ashenden - Ouch

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • halfempty
    Addicted
    • May 2008
    • 603

    #1

    Chris Ashenden - Ouch

    'Why rent' promoter Ashenden convicted



    The man behind a property scheme marketed with the phrase "why rent when you can own, rent is dead money" has been convicted in the Auckland District Court of misleading property hunters. Company director and bankrupt Christopher Mark Ashenden has been found guilty of breaching the Fair Trading Act, fined $237,048 and ordered to pay $42,764.
    Ashenden ran a home finance scheme where his companies - The Home Finance Company Limited and Meguro Limited - purchased residential properties in south Auckland.
    Theses were marketed using phrases such as ''why rent when you can buy'', but the people who signed up were granted only the right to occupy each property under a 30-year instalment agreement with various property investment companies.
    On the properties' titles, the investment companies were recorded as their owners, with their own mortgages registered against them.
    Purchasers through the scheme then made weekly payments of principal, interest, rates, taxes and insurance to the real owners, and were also required to fund any repairs the property required.
    The court found it was not made clear to the occupiers that their agreements did not give them legal ownership of their property until the end of the 30-year period.
    On sentencing Ashenden and his companies, Judge Moore said the offending contained strong elements of cynicism and the calculated exploitation of people.
    "By encouraging vulnerable people in the mistaken belief that they were acquiring home ownership rather than a package of rights and obligations which, on any view, fell far short of that concept, folk were lured into commitments which were a recipe for disasters in which they lost everything they had put into the property they were seeking to acquire - indeed were given to understand they had acquired."
    Judge Moore considered the voluntary bankruptcy, which was adjudicated in October last year, was no more than a ploy and was certainly not an indication of Ashenden's true worth.
    The Commerce Commission says Ashenden owes money both in New Zealand and in Australia, although he now lives the United States where he promotes a health supplement product known as 'Brainquicken' on websites and in blogs.
    "The commission is pleased the court has recognised that consumers caught up in the scheme suffered significant financial harm and distress and has ordered reparations as well as fines," says Commerce Commission enforcement manager Stuart Wallace.
    "It is also encouraging to see that the courts are prepared to look past complex commercial structures to ensure that the people and entities that are instrumental in these schemes do not escape penalty."
    Ad Feedback
    Civil action is continuing against Home Finance Company, Ashenden, and other investment companies involved in the home finance scheme.
    - BusinessDay.co.nz
  • Keithw
    Fanatical
    • Oct 2008
    • 1410

    #2
    Thats good news, but will complicate the lives of anyone trying to do Rent to Own / lease option deals.

    Its a shame/ sham that its only the little guys that ever get dragged thru the wringer, when people like Bryers, Hotchin etc get off next to scott free !
    Food.Gems.ILS

    Comment

    • Davo36
      Fanatical
      • Sep 2007
      • 8450

      #3
      Man, another one bites the dust. I thought this guy honestly built his wealth by buying properties in Invercargill when the boom was on. Recycling his deposits for the next deal and so on.

      Seems he's just another bankrupt property spruiker.
      Squadly dinky do!

      Comment

      • spaceman
        Banned
        • Feb 2004
        • 2817

        #4
        LOLZ.... ironic much????

        By January 2003 I had listened to every one of JB's tape sets and taking all of my various lunch mentor’s advice to heart I trudged off and met each of the advisors they suggested. When I had completed this, I phoned an individual who was playing aggressively in the market at the time and met him for lunch. This was great for me as it reaffirmed to me that my passion was in the game of RE and finance. In meeting this individual it also gave me a living example of what I had long considered to be a key to success. Dream VERY BIG, start small, break it into small steps and try and SYSTEMITIZE the whole thing so that it can grow itself. It also got me severely amped to get back into the game.


        NOTE: This individual turned out to be a fraud and a clown but I learnt a bunch.... http://www.propertytalk.com/forum/sh...chris+ashenden
        I guess we can tell what he learnt.

        Cheers
        Spaceman
        Last edited by spaceman; 06-04-2011, 02:23 PM.

        Comment

        • donna
          Administrator
          • Aug 2003
          • 10069

          #5
          Chris made $$ millions though - didn't he? So the fine may be small change. I wonder if he is one of many 'rent to buy' lease option providers soon to be up for legal proceedings. Chris may have been operating his business as he was taught to do so by someone else and is that someone else may be flying under the radar while their 'student' gets nicked? However what's done is in the past - it's not like you can 'undo' all the LO deals you did a few years back aye. With this case law now a precedence - many may be running for the Himalayan hills.

          Cheers,

          Donna :-0
          Email Sign Up - New Discussions, Monthly Newsletter, About PropertyTalk


          BusinessBlogs - the best business articles are found here

          Comment

          • halfempty
            Addicted
            • May 2008
            • 603

            #6
            Christopher Mark Ashenden has been found guilty of breaching the Fair Trading Act

            I think this is the telling part, it was a breach of the fair trading act rather than the fact that it was a lease option that brought it all down.

            I'm sure there are still ways to do Lease Options ethically.

            But There are issues around When the GST is triggered from memory.

            Comment

            • donna
              Administrator
              • Aug 2003
              • 10069

              #7
              Yeah but I wonder if what he was communicating was essentially a 'template' used by other LO providers etc.

              The court found it was not made clear to the occupiers that their agreements did not give them legal ownership of their property until the end of the 30-year period.
              cheers,

              Donna
              Email Sign Up - New Discussions, Monthly Newsletter, About PropertyTalk


              BusinessBlogs - the best business articles are found here

              Comment

              • muppet
                Banned
                • Sep 2003
                • 10593

                #8
                Comment from Keiran Trass
                "devised a system to fool people into believing they owned their own homes"
                This case is "chump change" on the real criminals in NZ.
                And yet Mark Bryers, his lawyers and accountants who "devised a scheme to fleece mum and dad investors, who either thought they were buying properties which they never got, or were collectively overcharged on cheap and nasty properties to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars" get off scott free?
                Remember the BIG 1ZB Radio and NZHerald advertising campaign of BlueChip "You too could make over $50,000 for just $1,000 down"
                Of course the truth in fact proved to be "You too will lose over $50,000 for just $1,000 down" and thousands of innocent people did.
                Justice prevails?

                Comment

                • MarkButThis
                  Opinionated
                  • Jun 2010
                  • 229

                  #9
                  confused

                  I don't get how these contracts get signed though without the buyers' lawyers raising a red flag on the 'purchase'?

                  Or am I being a bit naive here...

                  ...Did people really purchase these houses without their lawyer looking at an S&P or contract or anything?
                  Monkey see, monkey do

                  Comment

                  • NZGEMS
                    Addicted
                    • Jun 2005
                    • 772

                    #10
                    Hi MarkButThis

                    I did a number of these deals back in the early 2000's and YES people do buy without seeing their solicitor, I think about 2 in 10 went to a solicitor only.

                    I am not sure what was in Chris's contracts but I always made it clear they did not actually own the house until they had paid it off which they could do at any point during the 20 to 30 year term. My contract stated that too.

                    I guess we don't know the full story but there must have been enough people not happy to have a case and if Chris did deliberately mislead people that is a shame.

                    I think this goes back to a motto I always live my life by always be completely honest then at least there is a trail and I am sure no one would be upset. I know in the case of the rent to buys I did I had many happy customers, the market didn't take long to rise of course in the early 2000's so they all either purchased the properties off me or sold them and paid some debt off with the money. Sadly some of those people never changed their spending habits even though they were given debt reduction info etc to work it, after all we were dealing with people who the bank wouldn't loan to in the end or people who thought the bank wouldn't loan to them as some certainly had a large enough deposit that the bank would have loaned to them they just for some reason didn't want to go there. (probabyy thought their bad debt would go against them) I know in one case I actually had the bank jacked up for one lady but she just wouldn't get the loan from them so I did it myself from the same bank.

                    Lets hope those still doing these deals are all being honest about it, I am sure they are these days there is always someone out to try and take you down if they think you are doing anything not above board.

                    Comment

                    • cube
                      Thinking outside the square.
                      • Jun 2005
                      • 5076

                      #11
                      Certainly my LO tenants know/knew that they don't own the house until they complete the purchase - there is no S&P for them to take to their lawyers until then, but there is the LO agreement which spells out both parties rights and obligations quite clearly, and before anything is signed, we both go through it clause by clause.

                      (Haven't done any for a few years, and things have changed now).
                      DFTBA

                      Comment

                      • Camdrive
                        Freshie
                        • Apr 2011
                        • 2

                        #12
                        I have some knowledge of the comcom prosecution against Ashenden and others. I note a few posts here alluding to completing a wrap/LO in an ethical manner etc.
                        The courts have ruled that any person who conducts a wrap/LO is a promoter of a property scam who preys on vulnerable people.
                        Example1
                        Buyer A signs agreement after seeking independent advice and having every clause explained to them.
                        Misses 2nd payment. Fast forward 2 yrs, buyer A has missed 25% of payments. No amount of help etc has worked
                        Buyer A turns down a proposal to sell the house and use the substantial capital gain to pay off debt, contract profit and still walk away with $.
                        Buyer A turns down offer to just walk away and not pay any debt off etc.
                        Buyer A trashes house then moves out
                        Buyer A complains to Comcom.
                        Fast forward approx 3 yrs, Buyer A is awarded 10K reparation.

                        Example2
                        Buyer B signs agreement after having all clauses explained, does not seek independent advise.
                        Misses payments etc
                        2 yrs later sells house, makes 80K capital gain
                        All happy
                        Buyer B is approached buy Comcom 12 mths later
                        Buyer B is now not happy
                        Buyer B is awarded 4 figure reparation payment

                        The point is it does not matter how ethical, understanding, honest and cooperative you are (Robyn etc) you will not stand the scrutiny of the Comcom. The Comcom and the courts view even the best successful wraps/LO as a scam. Anyone who has done a wrap/LO has the potential to have your name in an article just like the one listed above. Simply paste your name in the place of “Chris Ashenden”.
                        The issue is that wrappers are deemed to breach the fair trading act by representing the property “for sale” when title does not pass to the buyer until a later date. If you have used the word “Own” or “Buy” in any adverts then you will be found guilty. If you represented any type of ownership when you met with a buyer (which you all would have as “ownership” or “potential ownership” is a fundamental part of the deal) you will be found guilty.
                        You could choose to defend the charges (200K) or come to an agreement with the Comcom, which is to admit guilt, which results in the headlines as above. The Comcom has put massive resourses into these cases.
                        If anyone has a wrap or LO then do everything you can to get it settled and do everything you can to ensure there is no issues and then make sure the buyer stays happy. Essentially every wrap/LO contract is unenforceable at best, at worst you will be labeled a scammer of vulnerable people.


                        The headlines and the reality are very different.

                        Comment

                        • spaceman
                          Banned
                          • Feb 2004
                          • 2817

                          #13
                          If what you say is correct Camdrive then no wonder Dorien didn't answer my question all those years ago.

                          Contracts tested?
                          Hi Dorien ... you say

                          Also when buying or using contracts is important to know that those contracts have been tried and tested. There are contracts available everywhere, on the internet, from new presenters etc. but if they are foreign or are still fairly new in the market you could become a guinea pig for them through the legal system.

                          I would argue that the only way the contracts can be tested is in a court of law.

                          I would guess that it would be a lot better for both parties to come to an agreement rather than involving the courts as both parties are much more likely to come out of it better off, rather than involving a bunch of lawyers. But if this is what you mean by tried and tested I strongly disagree

                          Until such time as a judge makes a decission in a case, there are only legal opinions. You may succesfully complete many deals without any problems, but this doesn't TEST the contracts.


                          How many court cases have you been involved in regarding LO's and SLO's?

                          What were the outcomes? (ie 80/20 in your favour...100% in your favour etc)

                          Would you have rather settled by agreement than going through the courts?

                          Cheers
                          Spaceman ..... http://www.propertytalk.com/forum/sh...Rineke+Forster
                          Though I find it a bit hard to believe it could be as black and white as you paint the picture ...... can you give any more deatails on how you know what you know or point us in the right direction so we can take a look for ourselves???

                          Cheers
                          Spaceman

                          Comment

                          • PeterEmpowerEd
                            • Oct 2003
                            • 725

                            #14
                            Originally posted by Camdrive View Post
                            I have some knowledge of the comcom prosecution against Ashenden and others. ...

                            The point is it does not matter how ethical, understanding, honest and cooperative you are (Robyn etc) you will not stand the scrutiny of the Comcom. The Comcom and the courts view even the best successful wraps/LO as a scam. Anyone who has done a wrap/LO has the potential to have your name in an article just like the one listed above. Simply paste your name in the place of “Chris Ashenden”.

                            The issue is that wrappers are deemed to breach the fair trading act by representing the property “for sale” when title does not pass to the buyer until a later date. If you have used the word “Own” or “Buy” in any adverts then you will be found guilty. If you represented any type of ownership when you met with a buyer (which you all would have as “ownership” or “potential ownership” is a fundamental part of the deal) you will be found guilty.

                            You could choose to defend the charges (200K) or come to an agreement with the Comcom, which is to admit guilt, which results in the headlines as above. The Comcom has put massive resourses into these cases.

                            Thanks for this comprehensive summary/reality check. Illuminating and, well, Crikey!
                            So this is how case law 'clarifies' the law? ... The 'accused' not putting up the cash against the bottomless pockets of a government agency to defend their reputations? Harsh.

                            I know people who have done wraps who have done so ethically as far as I know, and, as you say, explained the agreements and the nature of the transactions as fully as possible.

                            When it turns sour, as you say ...

                            Originally posted by Camdrive View Post
                            If anyone has a wrap or LO then do everything you can to get it settled and do everything you can to ensure there is no issues and then make sure the buyer stays happy. Essentially every wrap/LO contract is unenforceable at best, at worst you will be labeled a scammer of vulnerable people. The headlines and the reality are very different.
                            That seems like good advice. - P
                            Peter Aranyi
                            Blog: www.ThePaepae.com

                            Comment

                            • EagleEyes
                              Freshie
                              • Jun 2009
                              • 32

                              #15
                              Originally posted by PeterEmpowerEd View Post
                              Thanks for this comprehensive summary/reality check. Illuminating and, well, Crikey!
                              So this is how case law 'clarifies' the law? ... The 'accused' not putting up the cash against the bottomless pockets of a government agency to defend their reputations? Harsh- P
                              Yeah, bit hypocritical too. The comcom issue is investors ' taking advantage' of those more vulnerable, yet this heavy-handed approach seems to do the same thing - take advantage of comcoms deeper pockets for a legal dispute.
                              And surely it can't be that ' blanket' in its approach? Surely each case is taken on its merits. I also know people (myself included) who take a lot of care to make sure their LO system is a win/win for the tenant buyer. And my contracts appear to meet all criteria of the CCCFA. If my system is illegal, then so are all hire purchases!

                              Comment

                              Working...