D
- Status
A
azeemi
New Member
I'm sure Emaar and Nakheel will be the top rated out of the list, sadly they dont deliver on time either!
D
Datum1m
New Member
This is a step in the right direction, for investors who are looking to buy, but what will happen to us investors who have already bought and find out that we have bought from the worst Developers on the RERA list. This would completely devalue our investment and make it very hard for us to sell it on the open market.
I feel no Developer should be allowed to continue to sell or collect money from investors if they cannot prove they have the financial ability to deliver our units.
RERA need to get Developers to prove they have their own money in their Developments and are not totally reliant on our hard earned money to make their projects stack up financially.
Obviously not all Developers are going to have the same financial strength, but RERA should insist that they can all achieve a minimum requirement, which enables them to complete their projects without any risk to our money been lost, due to their financial incompetence.
If RERA could create such a ranking system then all we would need to look for is how well a Developer scores on items such as build quality, specification, the ability to complete on time and customer satisfaction. The last thing we want to be concerned about is the Developers ability to build, we need RERA to take this concern out of the equation before a Developer is allowed to market his product.
This type of ranking system would restore confidence to the market and the Banks would be more willing to lend investors money to purchase units, knowing the Developer has been approved through a RERA financial audit check. This check could include the Developers having to demonstrate they have bought the land 100% with their own money before marketing their units and that they are going to put at least 30% of their own capital into the construction phase of their Development
I feel no Developer should be allowed to continue to sell or collect money from investors if they cannot prove they have the financial ability to deliver our units.
RERA need to get Developers to prove they have their own money in their Developments and are not totally reliant on our hard earned money to make their projects stack up financially.
Obviously not all Developers are going to have the same financial strength, but RERA should insist that they can all achieve a minimum requirement, which enables them to complete their projects without any risk to our money been lost, due to their financial incompetence.
If RERA could create such a ranking system then all we would need to look for is how well a Developer scores on items such as build quality, specification, the ability to complete on time and customer satisfaction. The last thing we want to be concerned about is the Developers ability to build, we need RERA to take this concern out of the equation before a Developer is allowed to market his product.
This type of ranking system would restore confidence to the market and the Banks would be more willing to lend investors money to purchase units, knowing the Developer has been approved through a RERA financial audit check. This check could include the Developers having to demonstrate they have bought the land 100% with their own money before marketing their units and that they are going to put at least 30% of their own capital into the construction phase of their Development
G
Gashead
New Member
Of course, and if I had 5 minutes to spare I could make the list for you now. This list will just be to prop up the government developments and put them in a good light. 'Watchdog' my @rse.
eyeC
Senior Member
past history of developer is the best watchdog you can have
since everyone wanted to build at the same time and many they were add to it not enough resources ...it is not possible not to have delays
greedy developers changed in specs and reduced on the agreed quality plus make full use of received money on more loans and purchases to maximize their profits which caused delays
sad
people trusted them with their savings and they abused even thou they had very high profit margin...but greed is greed without limits
since everyone wanted to build at the same time and many they were add to it not enough resources ...it is not possible not to have delays
greedy developers changed in specs and reduced on the agreed quality plus make full use of received money on more loans and purchases to maximize their profits which caused delays
sad
people trusted them with their savings and they abused even thou they had very high profit margin...but greed is greed without limits
A
AngiBolyly
New Member
turning-point - what to pick out for firm cleaning?
As all we recognize, that now humanity emergency and it is of the utmost importance to be more inexpensive, it would be excellent to understand your opinions how to blow in better.
remarkably I am am stimulated with cleaning of the big carpets.
As all we recognize, that now humanity emergency and it is of the utmost importance to be more inexpensive, it would be excellent to understand your opinions how to blow in better.
remarkably I am am stimulated with cleaning of the big carpets.
M
memo123
Member
Lets be Honest here
What is the point of ranking developers? After the damage is done .
If the government is saying to the investor you have to pay 30% to the developer , then turns to the developer and tell him , "you are bad credit and you cannot get any loan from any bank" . SO why did you as a government allowed him to become a developer initially , without checking his background and credentials .
what good will that do to the investor who spent 30% and above while he has nothing to show for it but a piece of paper , and the developer has done nothing on the ground ,
and I mean absolutely nothing for a year ?
if the government want to do something of real substance then eradicate these developers completely , close them down and let them refund the money to rightful owners , the investors .
A developer that cant deliver should not exit as a developer , pure and simple .
What is the point of ranking developers? After the damage is done .
If the government is saying to the investor you have to pay 30% to the developer , then turns to the developer and tell him , "you are bad credit and you cannot get any loan from any bank" . SO why did you as a government allowed him to become a developer initially , without checking his background and credentials .
what good will that do to the investor who spent 30% and above while he has nothing to show for it but a piece of paper , and the developer has done nothing on the ground ,
and I mean absolutely nothing for a year ?
if the government want to do something of real substance then eradicate these developers completely , close them down and let them refund the money to rightful owners , the investors .
A developer that cant deliver should not exit as a developer , pure and simple .
W
Wannaberich
New Member
Anything like this that can help buyers decide what project to buy into has got to be a help.
I also think the Gov should make it harder for just about anyone to buy a bit of land and launch a project.
At the moment however,I would be worried about buying from any developer into a project that isnt at least 80% complete.Always the chance at the moment they go go bust without completing.
I also think the Gov should make it harder for just about anyone to buy a bit of land and launch a project.
At the moment however,I would be worried about buying from any developer into a project that isnt at least 80% complete.Always the chance at the moment they go go bust without completing.
- Status
