Jersey government 'must raise awareness about gazumping'
At present in the vast majority of cases, no pre-sale agreement is currently entered into, meaning buyers or sellers can pull out of a transaction until the deal is finalised in the Royal Court.A report in 2018 by the Residential Property Transactions Review panel found that "creating a pre-sale agreement... would create a greater deal of certainty in the transactions process and compensate losses incurred by either party".Housing Minister Sam Mezec said: "How and when a review of the property transaction process is undertaken is something that will need to be considered in the next political term in light of the priorities and resources available to the next government."Ms O'Connell said: "I appreciate they [the government] might not be able to look at this right now because a lot of work is going into things like rental legislation. "But this could be a huge potential blocker to people trying to get onto the property ladder. It's about making sure people are aware and warned because we certainly weren't."Our apartment had sold and we had a young baby and so we had nowhere to go."It cost us £1,000 in lawyer fees and we had to start the whole process again."
Deputy Max Andrews brought forward a proposition for a public consultation on bringing in pre-sale agreements for land and property transactions to help prevent gazumping and gazundering (where a proposed purchaser lowers their offer at the last minute). His proposition was rejected.The Council of Ministers said in response to the rejected proposition that "given the complexity of the issues and availability of resources for the remaining term of government, it would be a more prudent approach for the next government to give this issue consideration in a more comprehensive and planned way." Deputy Andrews said that was disappointing.He said: "I think its a very poor excuse for the Council of Ministers to turn around and to say this is for the next government to work with. This is a matter of public interest; we are seeing people being gazumped and gazundered and most of the politicians have decided not to take any action."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
25 minutes ago
- Reuters
Kazakhstan CPC Blend oil heads to Asia as European demand eases, sources say
SINGAPORE, July 18 (Reuters) - Asian refiners are buying more Kazakhstan CPC Blend crude loading in August than July after falling European demand depressed prices, traders said, likely capping Asia demand for similar light-sour grades such as Abu Dhabi's Murban. Softening demand from refiners in the Mediterranean for CPC Blend crude loading in the second-half of August widened discounts for the crude by about $1 a barrel from the previous month, a London-based trader said, creating opportunity for traders to cash in on the difference. Prices for CPC crude for delivery to North Asia are about $3.50 to just below $4 a barrel above September Dubai quotes, the sources said. This is below the cost for Murban at roughly $4.70 a barrel to Dubai quotes on a cost and freight basis (C&F), they added. Murban, which flows mostly to Asia, is supported by lower exports as Abu Dhabi National Oil Co is diverting supplies to its domestic refinery. Unipec, the trading arm of Asia's largest refiner Sinopec ( opens new tab, South Korea's top two refiners SK Energy and GS Energy, and India's Reliance Industries ( opens new tab have bought at least 1 million barrels of CPC Blend crude each, the sources said. The companies did not immediately respond to requests for comment. A narrowing of Brent's premium to Middle East benchmark Dubai has also made Atlantic Basin grades more affordable for Asian buyers. The Brent-Dubai Exchange of Futures for Swaps fell below $1.60 a barrel this week, on Thursday's close, levels not seen since May, LSEG data showed. June Goh, a senior analyst at Sparta Commodities, said an uptick in freight rates for Very Large Crude Carriers on the Middle East to China route has also increased costs for Gulf crudes versus arbitrage supplies from Kazakhstan, the U.S. and Brazil. "We anticipate further correction of the spot AG (Arabian Gulf) market is required to stave off competition of the arb crudes," she added. Meanwhile, traders are also seeking opportunities to ship U.S. West Texas Intermediate crude to Asia after premiums for WTI at East Houston , also known as MEH, fell to their lowest in more than two weeks. Offers for WTI crude deliveries to North Asia are about $5 a barrel above September Dubai quotes, slightly higher than Murban, traders said.
The Independent
26 minutes ago
- The Independent
The problem with Chelsea's transfer masterplan
It could be deemed the most successful transfer policy in the global game. Cole Palmer, the flagship coup of Chelsea's recruitment in the new era, scored twice in the Club World Cup final and was named player of the tournament. The other goal in the demolition of Paris Saint-Germain went to Joao Pedro: 11 days into his Chelsea career, the Brazilian had already scored twice in the semi-final. The Golden Glove was awarded to the much-maligned Robert Sanchez, the unlikely scourge of PSG's feared forward line. Of 15 players used in the final, three were academy graduates and the other 12 all bought under the new regime. Now Chelsea have a rare lull in the football, they can get back to their actual business: transfer business. After proof of the mastery of Todd Boehly and Clearlake Capital, they have another chance to demonstrate it. Or, putting sarcasm aside, after the evidence that Chelsea's outlay on players – now around £1.4bn under their current owners – has brought some quality and some return on the pitch, the Club World Cup winners have more trading to do. This time, the revolving door needs more departures than arrivals. Part of it is a rather basic but still accurate element: Chelsea have far too many players. Another ought to be obvious: the savings Chelsea claim they make with lower basic wages is offset by the size of the squad and it is a waste of money to pay players not to play. Yet there is now another imperative. Chelsea were fined €20m by Uefa for breaching squad cost control, which could rise by up to another €60m. Unless they demonstrate they have generated a cost-saving through sales, they could be unable to register new signings for the Champions League. Some of those new faces debuted for Chelsea in the United States, in Joao Pedro, Liam Delap and Dario Essugo. Others played for other clubs there but are now Blues, in Jamie Gittens and Estevao Willian. Then there is Mamadou Sarr and Kendry Paez, while Geovany Quenda is due to arrive next year. The good news, from a Chelsea perspective, is that they have so many players that there are a host of possible ways to generate money. Indeed, they have already started. They have reduced their stockpile of goalkeepers by selling Djordje Petrovic to Bournemouth, Kepa Arrizabalaga to Arsenal and Marcus Bettinelli to Manchester City. Bashir Humphreys' loan to Burnley became permanent and, in the accounts, counts as pure profit. Mathis Amougou has gone to sister club Strasbourg; there are suggestions Ishe Samuels-Smith will follow suit. The bad news, from a Chelsea perspective, is that it would still seem to leave a significant shortfall. Even Noni Madueke's move to Arsenal, while for a far bigger fee, would leave them with a substantial net spend this window. Another problem is the probability that the players they most want to sell are among the hardest to offload, particularly for sizeable sums. The Stamford Bridge version of the bomb squad would seem to include Raheem Sterling, Ben Chilwell, Joao Felix and Axel Disasi, none of whom went to the Club World Cup and thus, presumably, have fewer medals from it than Donald Trump. Perhaps Christopher Nkunku, though he did come on in the final, and Armando Broja may be honorary members of it. There is the further complication that they include several of the bigger earners. The great unsellable could be Sterling, whose loan to Arsenal last season was both subsidised and unsuccessful, thus rendering it less likely anyone will buy him now. Chilwell went to Crystal Palace, but they have just bought a left-back, Borna Sosa, on presumably smaller wages. Disasi could now be approximately an eighth-choice centre-back. Joao Felix was an oddity, bought a year after an underwhelming loan but only to pocket the pure profit from Conor Gallagher's departure. Perhaps Benfica will prove an escape route, but probably at a loss for Chelsea. Then there is Nkunku; available for a while, offered to various other clubs, a player of pedigree, but whose route into Enzo Maresca's strongest side is blocked. Chelsea have tried to sell Broja before but have overpriced an injury-prone attacker. There is a further category: the young players bought by the new regime, but without a clear plan or path to the team. Chelsea could do with cashing in on some. Carney Chukwuemeka could be among the most sellable and Chelsea's battalion of new midfielders might render him surplus to requirements. So, too, Lesley Ugochukwu. Maybe even Kiernan Dewsbury-Hall, too. The new influx of strikers makes it still harder to see David Datro Fofana or Deivid Washington, currently on loan at Santos, in the team; indeed, Nicolas Jackson's descent from first-choice centre-forward means he offers the possibility of proving a money-making sale. Others can testify to Chelsea's ruthlessness. Trevoh Chalobah has long looked at risk, as an academy graduate, but ought to have proved his (footballing) value enough to be safe; younger homegrown players such as Tyrique George or Josh Acheampong should nevertheless consider themselves warned. The sheer volume of footballers means Chelsea have multiple options. Perhaps few would notice if, say, Omari Kellyman or Caleb Wiley or Marc Guiu or Gabriel Slonina went. Renato Veiga at least made more of an impact. Perhaps the size of the squad explains why Chelsea need so many sporting directors. They could all be busy looking to offload players. Indeed, they have shown creativity in finding homes for the unwanted. But temporary deals could be less suitable if they need to make a profit. And, in any case, they can only loan out six players abroad, apart from club-trained and Under-21 players. Which, as some of their youthful recruits are 21 or 22, becomes more of an issue, especially if some of those loan spots have to be saved for a couple of the senior players who have no buyers. If part of the rationale behind Chelsea's remarkable recruitment was that they were creating value, now they need to extract some of it, to turn the hypothetical prices of players on the balance sheet into funds. Call it an exodus or a clearout but there has long been a case that Chelsea had to shed players. Now, in the glow of success, after being anointed by Fifa and punished by Uefa, is the time to do it.
The Independent
26 minutes ago
- The Independent
I was once hit with a superinjunction and know how democracy dies in the dark
I was once smacked with a superinjunction … and lived to tell the full Kafkaesque tale. So I have a lot of sympathy for The Independent and other media organisations who, for nearly two years, have been forced to sit on a story which the British state didn't want told. My own experience of being gagged involved an unappetising company called Trafigura, which had been caught dumping toxic chemicals off West Africa in 2006. The company had shelled out more than £30m in compensation and legal costs to 30,000 inhabitants of Abidjan in Ivory Coast who claimed to have been affected by the dumping. Trafigura was keen to suppress the findings of an internal report, which could have proved embarrassing. So they obtained an injunction to stop The Guardian from publishing it – and then, for good measure, a further injunction to prevent us from revealing the existence of the original injunction. Welcome to superinjunctions, which were, for a while, sprayed around like legal confetti – often by errant footballers keen to keep their off-pitch escapades secret. The Trafigura case represented a novel application of the law to silence investigative journalism, seemingly contradicting the only dictum about the courts that most people are familiar with – the principle that the law must be seen to be done. Trafigura went one step further. When a Labour MP tabled a question about their use of a superinjunction, their lawyers, the unlovely company Carter-Ruck, even warned newspapers that they would be in contempt of court if they dared mention this parliamentary intervention. That was plainly ludicrous. Trafigura's legal pitbulls had lost sight of the fact that people risked their liberty and their lives to fight for the right to report what their elected representatives say and do. The super injunction collapsed like an undercooked souffle. And here we are 16 years later, discovering that, for 683 days, a tiny handful of lawyers, judges, politicians and civil servants had been silencing the press from telling the most extraordinary story of how a hapless MoD official caused a catastrophic data breach, putting the lives of thousands of Afghans in peril. The saga began in September 2023 when Mr Justice Knowles issued a gagging order contra mundum (against the world) forbidding anyone from revealing the leak, which named Afghans who had assisted the British forces in Kabul – and who might now be at risk of reprisals from the Taliban. The judge spoke in lukewarm terms about the importance of freedom of expression, but considered a blanket gag was essential to give MoD time to mitigate the harm. Since then, a growing number of journalists became aware of the story, and another judge, Mr Justice Chamberlain, held multiple hearings – many of them closed to outsiders – to decide how long the injunction should hold. At one point, about a year ago, he thought enough was enough, but was overruled by the Court of Appeal. It was only this week that the curtain was lifted and we were allowed to know that as many as 18,500 Afghans had secretly been flown to Britain at a cost variously estimated to be between £400m and £7bn (ie we don't know). British spies and special forces soldiers were also among the tens of thousands of people potentially put at risk by the catastrophic Afghan data leak. The clincher for Chamberlain was a risk assessment report commissioned by the current government from a retired civil servant, Paul Rimmer. Rimmer took a markedly different view of the ongoing risk and, said Chamberlain, 'fundamentally undermined' the case for the gagging order to continue. And so it was that, at midday on Tuesday, the jaw-dropping nature of what had been going on was finally revealed. Some might argue that, back in September 2023, there was a case for some kind of news blackout to give the authorities a chance to alert those most at risk, and to extricate as many people as possible. The question is, was it right to keep the gagging order in place for so long? Chamberlain clearly thought it was fine to discharge it a year ago. Was he right? Or was the MoD justified in arguing for more time? The first thing to be said is that the state (in the form of governments and Whitehall) will, in such circumstances, always argue for more secrecy. They will say they are acting in the national interest. But history tells us that the government of the day can often not be trusted in their judgment of where the national interest lies. In 1938, the government of the day attempted to use the Official Secrets Act to compel Duncan Sandys MP to disclose the source of his information about the state of anti-aircraft defences around London. Sandys later became defence minister. Historians now take a different view of those who opposed appeasement in the 1930s. Also in the 1930s, the appeasing government condemned the 'subversive' whistleblowers who were feeding Winston Churchill information about Britain's readiness for war. 'The damage done to the Services far outweighs any advantage that may accrue,' raged a now-forgotten war minister. He was wrong: Churchill and his informants were right. The government of the day tried in 1967 to prevent The Sunday Times, under its editor, Harold Evans, from publishing an accurate account of the case of former MI6 agent Kim Philby and his life as a double agent. The then foreign secretary, George Brown, having failed to prevent publication, publicly accused Evans of being a traitor and of 'giving the Russians a head start... for god's sake, stop!' It's not just a British instinct. In 2004, George W Bush talked The New York Times out of running a series of articles which revealed that the US National Security Agency [NSA] had been eavesdropping on the communications of Americans without any warrant. Bush told the editor: 'You'll have blood on your hands.' The editor spiked the articles. So Mr Justice Chamberlain was right to be a little sceptical about what the state's representatives were telling him during this two-year saga. As he pointed out, the potential sums of money involved (£7bn!?) and the sheer number of urgent migrants were entirely legitimate subjects of political debate. Even more troubling is the fact that members of parliament's Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) were also kept in the dark. In June 2024, a court of appeal judge suggested that the ISC might be allowed access to the issue. But the lead KC for the MoD poo poohed the idea. Lord Beamish, the ISC's chair, said the decision not to keep his committee in the loop was 'appalling'. He's right. The ISC is a statutory committee intended to scrutinise the work of Britain's spy agencies, including GCHQ, MI6 and MI5. Being told that the MoD doesn't trust them with 'certain pieces of information' calls into question the entire mechanism of oversight in the secret state. What else do the spooks not think they can be trusted to know? Ironically, the seven media organisations – including The Independent – that were in on the secret by the time the injunction was finally discharged all behaved impeccably in not breathing a word. It's a topsy-turvy world in which journalists can be trusted with knowing information that the ISC was denied. Lord Beamish is right to be furious – and no doubt his committee will want answers. They're not the only ones. There should be the fullest possible reckoning. As the saying goes, democracy dies in darkness.
