Chris Ashenden - Ouch

[Shane D]

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.

Ouch..that's not good for the "mentors" or "educators" out there pushing various wrap/rent-to-buy strategies. Seems like the noose is slowly tightening around the whole property education industry. No wonder their new investment strategy seem to be more overseas PI investing focused.

Shane

[speights boy]

Chris made $$ millions though - didn't he?
Donna :-0

http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=449356704910&oid=244277601889&comments&ref=mf

[donna]

Yeah so he's moved on - it's a big world out there and Chris will be doing well I suspect!

cheers,

Donna

[speights boy]

Yeah so he's moved on - it's a big world out there and Chris will be doing well I suspect!

Donna

" 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."

You are quite right Donna; people often " do move on " for all manner of reasons.

Reading some of the comments on his 2005 thread certainly were a giggle though.

[Camdrive]

The issue is not with the contracts, they are legal and comply with the CCCFA. The issue is how you advertise them. Any insinuation that the buyers will have ownership will cause you to fall foul of the Comcom. They believe that because title is not transferred immediatly, then ownership has not happened. So you can’t advertise “Own your own home for $xx/week”. So any defence would be based on an argument that effective ownership etc is an actual reality. But it is unclear if this would be successful.
Note that any defence will be conducted with the Comcom painting you as a low life loan shark preying on the poor & uneducated.

And surely it can't be that ' blanket' in its approach? Surely each case is taken on its merits.

Don't count on it.

As I said before, they deemed succsessful and completed wraps/LO where the buyer had obtained title and made significant $, as being unlawful and awarded reparation. These guys were responsable investors, not sharks.

Another interesting point is that silent investors (as used by some wrap investors) who provided the cash etc were also prosecuted.

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???

You will be surprised at how black and white they are about it. I don't really want to say too much in a public forum. I suppose court docs may be available, but the statement of facts are "facts" acording to the Comcom. The investors didn't really get a chance to challenge any disagreement of "facts".

The Com com are a bunch of serious bureaucrats, with huge power and deep pockets.

[spaceman]

......
Note that any defence will be conducted with the Comcom painting you as a low life loan shark preying on the poor & uneducated.

.....as all landlords are portrayed n'est-ce pas????

........ I suppose court docs may be available, but the statement of facts are "facts" acording to the Comcom. The investors didn't really get a chance to challenge any disagreement of "facts".

.......lolz ..... that's a pretty big call...... facts are facts and unable to be disputed...... or else they wouldn't be called facts.... basically you're implying the judges in Invercargill & Auckland had the wool pulled.

The Com com are a bunch of serious bureaucrats, with huge power and deep pockets.

.... generally speaking I've found bureaucrats to be unfailingly crap at their jobs and pretty much mindless drones who have trouble seeing the wood for the trees. I have no evidence that the commcomm are any different and in fact seriously doubt it.

Cheers
Spaceman