aiekon
Active Member
It seems as though Charles Hanes is using his website to publicly "bash" the living conditions at the Met. Here's the link: http://www.simplycondos.com/market_today/2008/edilcan.htm
And now the article:
I purchased a small townhouse in The Met as an investment and I've regretted having done so ever since.
The unit was left in deplorable condition throughout the entire "Occupancy Period"! Initially they hid behind the Condo Act which gives developers up to 120 days to remedy deficiencies and then, after the 120 days had long passed and Registration finally took place (I had other clients in the tower paying occupancy fees for almost a full year - compare this with the Hudson that had Occupancy for only a week and you will see why many of my clients were unhappy with Edilcan) I published an article venting my disappointment only to be chased down by a high priced litigator threatening to sue me for defamation. Based on this developer's (Di Rocco family) conduct, I am left to conclude that they are much happier paying expensive litigators to restrict honest commentary, than simply satisfying a client and doing what they are expected to do.
After Registration, and with the work still uncompleted I published the article and immediately heard from their litigator only to find that within hours they had sent someone to fix the ceiling (after 5 months of not doing anything and after I disclosed to the litigator that I had hired my own repair person to fix it) they entered my PRIVATE PROPERTY against my specific instruction (where I come from they call this "Trespassing") and finally fixed the stipple ceiling.
So here we sit, six months after "Occupancy" (paying $2,600 per month in occupancy fees) and AFTER FINAL Registration (where I gave them the balance of $400,000.00 and received my "title" to the property) with a yet to be completed building. A picture is worth a thousand words, they say so here is an abundance of commentary about what you can expect if you buy from Edilcan and/or the Di Rocco family!
I've gone to considerable lengths to limit this article to "FACT" as true facts cannot be distorted to represent "defamation" even by the best of lawyers although I am fully expecting the same old fall out. This time I will defend. They can throw as much money as they choose to in threatening "Frivolous Litigation". This is information of major importance to the public and by limiting my comment to fact and not opinion I am confident that defamation can not ethically be alleged. Let's wait and see.
I guess I've been operating under a delusion all these years understanding (or misunderstanding to be more accurate) that the Condo Act and Tarion Warranty were designed to be protection for consumers.
I called Tarion to complain about the halls with no wall paper or carpet (AFTER Registration) only to learn that until the "Turn Over Meeting" (scheduled for a couple weeks time yet) owners have no standing with respect to the "common areas" which hallways are.
And now the article:
I purchased a small townhouse in The Met as an investment and I've regretted having done so ever since.
The unit was left in deplorable condition throughout the entire "Occupancy Period"! Initially they hid behind the Condo Act which gives developers up to 120 days to remedy deficiencies and then, after the 120 days had long passed and Registration finally took place (I had other clients in the tower paying occupancy fees for almost a full year - compare this with the Hudson that had Occupancy for only a week and you will see why many of my clients were unhappy with Edilcan) I published an article venting my disappointment only to be chased down by a high priced litigator threatening to sue me for defamation. Based on this developer's (Di Rocco family) conduct, I am left to conclude that they are much happier paying expensive litigators to restrict honest commentary, than simply satisfying a client and doing what they are expected to do.
After Registration, and with the work still uncompleted I published the article and immediately heard from their litigator only to find that within hours they had sent someone to fix the ceiling (after 5 months of not doing anything and after I disclosed to the litigator that I had hired my own repair person to fix it) they entered my PRIVATE PROPERTY against my specific instruction (where I come from they call this "Trespassing") and finally fixed the stipple ceiling.
So here we sit, six months after "Occupancy" (paying $2,600 per month in occupancy fees) and AFTER FINAL Registration (where I gave them the balance of $400,000.00 and received my "title" to the property) with a yet to be completed building. A picture is worth a thousand words, they say so here is an abundance of commentary about what you can expect if you buy from Edilcan and/or the Di Rocco family!
I've gone to considerable lengths to limit this article to "FACT" as true facts cannot be distorted to represent "defamation" even by the best of lawyers although I am fully expecting the same old fall out. This time I will defend. They can throw as much money as they choose to in threatening "Frivolous Litigation". This is information of major importance to the public and by limiting my comment to fact and not opinion I am confident that defamation can not ethically be alleged. Let's wait and see.
I guess I've been operating under a delusion all these years understanding (or misunderstanding to be more accurate) that the Condo Act and Tarion Warranty were designed to be protection for consumers.
I called Tarion to complain about the halls with no wall paper or carpet (AFTER Registration) only to learn that until the "Turn Over Meeting" (scheduled for a couple weeks time yet) owners have no standing with respect to the "common areas" which hallways are.
