Kibkom North Cyprus Forum

Please make it clearer what the topic is all about

The reason that I posted this was because I didn't really understand it myself. And I hoped that someone on here would.

I read a slightly different article on this (can't remember where) and I must confess what I took from it was that if there was a settlement if we had exchange title we would be required to contribute 30/40% of the compensation, as the immovable properties would no longer be willing/able to fund all of it. So between that and the compulsory health insurance we will all need to empty our piggy banks again

I think I might have read the same article as LL and I believe it said 30 or 40% of the original contract buying price. What piggy bank?

If there is such compensation to be paid then it should come from the guy who was granted our exchange land and then sold it to the builder. He was the one who got the profit.

Further, the compensation should only relate to the land value - the house was built after 1974 and never belonged to the GC land owner.

Speaking for myself only

If as a result of compensation being paid via the IPC to the pre 74 GC owner of the land my house is on or such being paid to them as the result of a general Cyprus settlement, the status of my house and the land of it changes from 'disputed' to 'internationally recognised freehold ownership' and therefore it's value increase by a given amount overnight as a result of this change, I would consider that if I was then liable for a financial contribution to effect this change reasonable , with a few provisos. Proviso one - my liability would be the no more than the increase in value I would accrue from the change. Proviso 2 - there would be some form of reasonable mechanism with regards to me meeting this liability - that is I would not be liable for it in a single cash lump sum up front (possibly I could choose for example to defer it as a one off 'sales tax' when the property is next sold. Proviso 3 - My deeds are recognised by the RoC as legitimate (or by whatever the new federal Cyprus is know as if its via a general solution).

So for example, lets say I bought my 'disputed' property house for 120,000. The house was built post 74. Pre 74 the land was GC. Let say the 120,000 represents 90,000 for the house and 30,000 for the land. The pre 74 GC owner of the land is awarded the 30,000 that the land is worth. I am then liable for 40% of that 30,000 compensation (12,000). In return for this liability of 12,000 the value of my house and property on it increases by 15% (18,000) because now there is no dispute over its title - I am clearly the undisputed freeholder of said property and can sell it as such if I wish and the buyer will similarly be such as well.

So I would get a liability of 12,000 offset by an increase in value of 18,000 in my property. That to me would be reasonable , provided I am not expected to come up with the 12,000 in a cash lump sum immediately.

This is a Greek propaganda sheet, so any info regarding TRNC matters should be taken with a pinch of salt

I'm pretty sure that no where does it state that the 30 - 40% is linked to the value of the purchase contract, it is 30 - 40% of the compensation based on the perceived value of the land differential to the value of the exchange land 'granted' in the south... Unless they are willing to give up the land in the south - they can't both full value of the land in the north whilst retaining the land in the south that belonged to a TC.

It's a GC/Greek site attempting to put spin on their case - mostly scaremongering in an attempt to undermine confidence in the north. Go figure.

JBA wrote:If there is such compensation to be paid then it should come from the guy who was granted our exchange land and then sold it to the builder. He was the one who got the profit.

He got the profit on selling disputed title land. You would end up with undisputed title land having bought it as disputed title. This increase would accrue to you and I think it is not unreasonable therefore that you be liable for a contribution to cost of it's status changing from disputed to undisputed.

JBA wrote:Further, the compensation should only relate to the land value - the house was built after 1974 and never belonged to the GC land owner.

Pre 74 owners would be compensated for what they lost, not what they lost has subsequently become. If they lost bare land, then they will be compensated for the value of bare land.

Erol

To my mind it was not disputed land. It was exchange land and the TRNC government held title to equivalent land in the South that could be used to pay any future compensation. That is what we were promised.

Further, if the original GC owner is getting compensation then why will the TC not get compensation for his original land in the South and thus get have double the value.

My opinion is that a solution is way in the distance.
All the noise coming out about "great progress" is just a smoke screen because that's what the world wants to hear.
Yes there are some things that they agree on but there are may they don't and are still as far apart as ever.

JBA wrote:Erol

To my mind it was not disputed land. It was exchange land and the TRNC government held title to equivalent land in the South that could be used to pay any future compensation. That is what we were promised.

The land originally exchanged with the TRNC will be used to pay compensation, 60-70% of it. The remainer to be owed by yourself and in exchange you will get an increase in value of your asset by an equivalent amount or more depending on the specifics. As I say for me and speaking only for myself this does not seem unreasonable.

JBA wrote:Further, if the original GC owner is getting compensation then why will the TC not get compensation for his original land in the South and thus get have double the value.

The TC has had his compensation for the land in the South he signed over to the TRNC. He will not be due for any more. He had as compensation the land your house is now on that he then sold.

So, forgive me if I don't understand this because I am one of thousands who do not. The TC has had his compensation for the land in the South he signed over to the TRNC - That compensation was/is the land that he then quite legally sold on to another person/persons. So are you saying that the TRNC gave away the TC land in the South in exchange for the same amount of GC land in the North and then gave that - what is now EX-GC land - to the TC who had given up his/her land in the South?

If that is so, then how can the GC now claim compensation from the land owner in the North who has been legally sold his (EX-GC) land by the TC who received that land from the TRNC Gov't (in exchange for his/her land that was used to pay compensation to the GC in the first place) ? If anyone should fight the compensation request it is the TRNC Gov't who made the original compensation payment, and will still have a record of the same - the Gov't should be able to show this as proof that compensation has already been paid???

waddo I am struggling to understand your post.

This is how things went / are in simple terms

Post the events of 74 the TRNC expropriates all GC owned land in the north and do not pay those GC owners any compensation for that expropriation

post 74 a TC (lets call him mehmet) chooses to hand over his deeds to land he had in the south to the TRNC and in return he gets a piece of land that the TRNC expropriated from a GC owner post 74 (lets call him Georgios). The TRNC does not compensate that pre 74 GC owner (Georgios), it just holds on to the deeds of the property in the south that used to be Mehmets.

At this stage Mehmet can be said to have been compensated for the land he lost in the South, but Georgios has yet to be compensated for the land he lost in the North, that Mehmet now has the use of.

Let's say Mehmet sells this land to Erbil. Erbil buys this land knowing that Gerogios has yet to be compensated for it and knowing that it is therefore cheaper than an equivalent plot of land in the North that was never GC owned. Erbil builds a house on this land.

Dave a british expat then buys this land and house from Erbil, knowing (or should know) that Georgios still has not had any compensation for his loss of this land as a result of the events of 74 and knowing (or should know) that it is therefore cheaper than an equivalent house built on land in the North that was never GC owned.

The TRNC then decides it wants to broker a settlement and agree re unification. In order to do this Georgios needs to be compensated for the loss of his land in the North, that he has yet to be compensated for.

So you might ask, why not just compensate him with the land (or value from the land) that Mehmet handed over to the TRNC and that the TRNC still has. Well the answer is that Georgios can be compensated with this land or the value from it. The problem is that the total amount of GC land expropriated by the TRNC in the north post 74 is more (and its value is more) than that land in the South which TC like Mehmet signed over to the TRNC. There is a shortfall.

So who should make up this shortfall, that is necessary to be made up if the TRNC wants a solution ? Should Turkey make it up (which means effectively Turkish tax payers). Or would it not be fairer that Dave pay a contribution to make up this shortfall, on the basis that Dave will personally get a financial bonus in the form of his land and property now being free of any potential claim from Georgios and thus will increase in value as a result.

I am of the view that Dave making a contribution is a fair and reasonable proposal, if he is given fair and reasonable terms in which to pay that contribution and if that contribution is in the same ball park or less than the increase in value his house and land will accrue as a result of Georgios having been compensated for his loss.

By the way I am effectively Dave in this scenario.

Will the banks, owning mortgaged land from absent/non-paying developers and builders, be expected to contribute to this proposed compensation scheme or will it just be the owners of all ready fully paid for house owners who have been the subject of stealth mortgages, fraud and breach of contract sales who cannot obtain their title deeds for the land their properties are built on?

"post 74 a TC (lets call him mehmet) chooses to hand over his deeds to land he had in the south to the TRNC and in return he gets a piece of land that the TRNC expropriated from a GC owner post 74 (lets call him Georgios). The TRNC does not compensate that pre 74 GC owner (Georgios), it just holds on to the deeds of the property in the south that used to be Mehmets."

So - the TRNC illegally gave away a bit of land (Georgios's) that they did not own to Mehmet, who in return gave away his land in the South to the TRNC - win, win for the TRNC and lose, lose for Mehmet and Georgios!!

"The TRNC then decides it wants to broker a settlement and agree re unification. In order to do this Georgios needs to be compensated for the loss of his land in the North, that he has yet to be compensated for."

Dave is not interested in the Total Amount of land that the TRNC expropriated from Georgios, he is only interested in the bit he now sits on - Dave should not be asked to provide any form of compensation for his bit of land as Mehmet has already exchanged his land in the South for Daves bit of land in the North years before? It is the problem of the TRNC to provide compensation for the total amount of land they expropriated above and beyond Dave's bit!

Of course, because the TRNC holds all the original deeds for Mehmets land in the South they can counter claim for compensation as well and use those funds to balance the books?

It is the TRNC that wants a settlement - quite rightly - so it should be down to the TRNC to pay for the same, not its people surely?

I am obviously neither GC nor TC and am only displaying an interest in the country I now call home BUT if I were a TC who has suffered under the unjust isolation of the past 40+ years and was then asked, at referendum, to pay through the nose once more to be allowed to live in the country I called my own - my answer would be NO - that regardless of how wealthy or poor I am.

tomsteel wrote:Will the banks, owning mortgaged land from absent/non-paying developers and builders, be expected to contribute to this proposed compensation scheme

Who ever is the 'owner' of the land (according to the TRNC) will be both liable for providing a contribution to compensation and will receive the benefit of an overnight windfall on the value of that asset as it changes from disputed to undisputed. So if a bank has reposed land based on non payment of a mortgage taken out against it, then yes it will be liable to contribute to the compensation and in return it will accrue the increase value that land will have as a result of compensation having been paid for it.

tomsteel wrote:or will it just be the owners of all ready fully paid for house owners who have been the subject of stealth mortgages, fraud and breach of contract sales who cannot obtain their title deeds for the land their properties are built on?

Issues of fraud, of stealth mortgages, breach of contract and others besides are real and serious and widespread issues, blighting the lives of thousands of people. However they are not the same issue as to what the mechanisms for settling property problems between north and south as apart of a general settlement might be. I do not think lumping them in with such when discussing the former issue helps particularly. I am absolutely not saying these issue are not real and do not need to be addressed. They are real and they need to be addressed but they are different issues to the one I am talking about here, at least as far as I am concerned.

waddo wrote: So - the TRNC illegally gave away a bit of land (Georgios's) that they did not own to Mehmet, who in return gave away his land in the South to the TRNC - win, win for the TRNC and lose, lose for Mehmet and Georgios!!

Well loss for Georgios. Mehmet did get 'something' for his loss. You can argue that what he got was not the same as what he lost (he lost undisputed title property and got in exchange disputed title) but that was Mehmet's choice. He was not obliged to take such as compensation. He could have chosen, as some TC did, to not exchange his land in the South with the TRNC, in exchange for and use of disputed property in the North.

waddo wrote:Dave is not interested in the Total Amount of land that the TRNC expropriated from Georgios, he is only interested in the bit he now sits on - Dave should not be asked to provide any form of compensation for his bit of land as Mehmet has already exchanged his land in the South for Daves bit of land in the North years before? It is the problem of the TRNC to provide compensation for the total amount of land they expropriated above and beyond Dave's bit!

Dave may not be interested in anything. However the reality would remain that Dave will receive a windfall increase in value of the land on which he sits currently as a result of Georgios being compensated. A windfall over and above what he bought. He bought property that was built on disputed land - at a price commensurate with that reality. He will end up with a property on land that is no longer disputed as a result of Georgios being compensated - with a increase in its value as a result. I remain of the view that if what Dave gains as a result of a settlement is equal to or more than what he is expect to contribute towards compensation, then it is not essentially unfair to Dave.

Would I prefer a settlement where I personally get a windfall increase in the value of my property in the North over and above what I paid for it and what it is worth pre settlement with no personal cost to me at all vs one where there is a cost to me that is in the same proportion to the windfall I would also get ? You bet I would. Would the only way I would support a settlement be on the condition I got such a personal windfall increase in the value of my property, with no cot to myself ? No it would not be the only way I would support such a plan. If the cost to me personally of such a plan is in the same ball park as the gain to me personally of it and provided I am given a reasonable way of meeting that cost, then I would support such a plan.

waddo wrote: It is the TRNC that wants a settlement - quite rightly - so it should be down to the TRNC to pay for the same, not its people surely?

Where do you think the TRNC's money comes from if not from 'the people' (or from 'the people of Turkey' who on average are less well off than the people of the TRNC I might point out) ?

waddo wrote:... if I were a TC who has suffered under the unjust isolation of the past 40+ years and was then asked, at referendum, to pay through the nose once more to be allowed to live in the country I called my own - my answer would be NO - that regardless of how wealthy or poor I am.

A little bit emotive do you not think ? Paying 'through the nose' ? I see a cost AND a gain for such individuals, where th cost could easily be less than the gain - that to me is not 'paying through the nose'. In order to be allowed to live in my own country ? A compensation contribution would not be to allow you to live in your own country. It would be to change the status of your land / property from dispute to undisputed and you would get the benfit of that change in increased value of your property.

Under 'my' system the people who will contribute to the shortfall would be the same people who will personally financially gain from the settlement as a result of their property changing in status from disputed (what they originally bought) to undisputed. Under you system where the TRNC makes up this shortfall, it would be TC (and mainland Turks) who pay for making up this shortfall, those who personally gain from it and those who do not. I think the former is inherently fairer than the later myself.

Given that this is a discussion and that it is not a "Mud Slinging" match in any form -

"Under 'my' system the people who will contribute to the shortfall would be the same people who will personally financially gain from the settlement as a result of their property changing in status from disputed (what they originally bought) to undisputed. Under you system where the TRNC makes up this shortfall, it would be TC (and mainland Turks) who pay for making up this shortfall, those who personally gain from it and those who do not. I think the former is inherently fairer than the later myself."

May I most respectfully point out that under "your" system the people who will gain financially are only those who would be able to afford to contribute to the shortfall - those who can not afford contributions would face an even bleaker future than at present. May I also point out that it would not only be the TC (and mainland Turks) who would pay for the shortfall under "my" system - unless of course you are of the opinion that all non TC residents in the TRNC live here for free, fail to support the TRNC in any financial way and are asked for nothing at all by the TRNC??

It is a discussion and I mean no disrespect in anything I write. However, I have lived here for the past 8 years, all of my money has been spent here, I purchased my sole residence here, I pay all my utility bills here, I continue to pay my annual "Visitors" permit and my three yearly driving license here, my road tax helps pay to fill in the holes in highway - do I not contribute to the overall running and costs of the TRNC? Simply put, we all pay towards the running of the country, like every citizen in every other country in the world we do expect the government of that country to look after its residents.

Now I do understand that not everyone lives on "disputed" land and that it would be unfair to make those who do not live on disputed land assist those who do - that shoots my system straight out of the sky, curses! I struggle to understand the whole thing but rest happy in the knowledge that there are (hopefully) much cleverer people than me in control of the entire process. Thank you for trying to make an impossible task simple.

waddo wrote:Given that this is a discussion and that it is not a "Mud Slinging" match in any form -

I certainly do not see this discussion as 'mud slinging' in any way. Not from my part and not from yours. All I am trying to do is explain as best I can why for me the idea of a contribution towards compensation costs needed for a settlement coming from individuals that will also individually gain from the results of a settlement is to me not unfair in and off itself.

waddo wrote:May I most respectfully point out that under "your" system the people who will gain financially are only those who would be able to afford to contribute to the shortfall - those who can not afford contributions would face an even bleaker future than at present.

You may indeed point this out. In return may I respectfully point out that I have already said that a key proviso of my support for such an approach would be that 'reasonable means' have to be provided for those who would get such liabilities to be able to meet them. What those means are could be many and varied but I personally would like and have mooted an approach where by such liabilities could be by choice deferred, as a one off sales tax, until the property is next sold.

I gave some hypothetical figures in post 6 of this thread. Taking those figures, on day one I (or Dave) is liable for a 12,000 contribution to a compensation fund. If Dave has the money at day one and wants to, he can trot down to the Tapu and hand over the 12,000 in cash, happy in the knowledge that his land and property has increased in value by 18,000 as a result of the settlement. I on the other hand simply do not have 12,000 spare. So instead I elect to defer my payment as a one off sales tax when I (or my heirs) ever sell the property. This one off tax liability would be for 40% of the value of the land (not the house) I have. Again using the figures from post 6 this would represent 10% of the pre settlement value of both the house and land. The TRNC government could then borrow money secured against this future tax revenue to pay Georgios on day one of a settlement in the hope and expectation that the costs of them doing so would be matched by increasing value that the 10% sales tax represents over time. If I sell my house after 10 years of a settlement, then the 10% is more that it was on day one. If I sell it after 100 years this 10% is more again (assuming that over the long terms the value increases and thus the 10% tax increases).

To be honest I am not 100% sure that the above scenario works out, but the point is there has to be some mechanism whereby those who would become liable for compensation (as well as getting in return increased value on their property) can meet those liabilities. If such a solution required that you come up with the liability all in cash up front on day one, then I would not consider such fair and would not support such a solution. Mainly on the basis that I personally could not come up with such a cash sum upfront on day one.

waddo wrote:May I also point out that it would not only be the TC (and mainland Turks) who would pay for the shortfall under "my" system - unless of course you are of the opinion that all non TC residents in the TRNC live here for free, fail to support the TRNC in any financial way and are asked for nothing at all by the TRNC??

You may indeed point this out and I thank you for doing so for it allows me to clarify what I meant. I was just trying to point out that the 'TRNC' making up the shortfall is the same as saying 'the people of the TRNC' should do so - not different from it. I absolutely agree that you are a contributor to the TRNC. I think Me (as a TC) and Dave (as a ex pat) contributing to compensation cost shortfall, based on it being us who will also gain (and with the proviso that we are given reasonable means to do so), is fairer that saying Me and Dave and Ahmet (a TC who never took exchange land at all) and John (an expat who bought undisputed title land here post 74) should all pay. Neither Ahmet or John will gain as a result of my deeds changing from disputed to undisputed. Me and Dave will gain from such.

Basically I was in no way trying to differentiate between TC citizens and Ex pats, not in terms of what they contribute to the TRNC or in terms of how a solution should be applied to them and I apologise for having given an impression that I was and I thank you for the opportunity to make clear (hopefully) that I was not.

waddo wrote:It is a discussion and I mean no disrespect in anything I write.

Likewise

waddo wrote: However, I have lived here for the past 8 years, all of my money has been spent here, I purchased my sole residence here, I pay all my utility bills here, I continue to pay my annual "Visitors" permit and my three yearly driving license here, my road tax helps pay to fill in the holes in highway - do I not contribute to the overall running and costs of the TRNC? Simply put, we all pay towards the running of the country, like every citizen in every other country in the world we do expect the government of that country to look after its residents.

Absolutely agree and with respect may I refer the honourable gentleman to my reply given above

waddo wrote: Thank you for trying to make an impossible task simple.

Thank you for the same.

Thanks for all the posts guys. And thanks for breaking it down into dodger size pieces Errol just like you used to in Cyp 44 days.

Can I raise two further points:

1. Dave bought his property direct from Mehmet (who took the money and went to Turkey). After the opening of the border Georgios visited his old property and Dave made him welcome and showed him around.G. Georgios confided that he did receive compensation by way of a property in the South which is much more modern and more convenient for his circumstances, and at that time was worth more than an old house in the NOrth (and probably still is, even allowing for the fact that Dave has spent a lot of money in improving a very delapidated house.) Georgios was happy and settled and wanted to stay where he is. They are both old men now, and Dave (who could be said to have bought Mehmet's rights into the property might consider he has also bought Mehmet's rights to compensation) might even be tempted by a straight swap! Why should Dave have to pay compensation to someone who has already done well out of the deal, particularly as Dave has already contributed to the TRNC by renovating a house that was falling into delapidation, as well as other contributions to the economy over many years.

I have heard that - on both sides - allocation of property on the "points system" was inequitable - some getting worse and some better and that which they had left. Is this anomaly being addressed in the negotiations? Who gets the compensation?

2. Under the Anan plan it was proposed that compensation be based on the value of the property at pre 1974 prices. Presumably most land in the North will be considerable more valuable now (even without taking into account building on it, or improvement of existing buildings at the expense of the new owners) . Does anyone know what the basis is now ? Like quite a lot of people here, George had sufficient saving to cover emergencies but due to , let us say, unethical practices of others (not necessarily Cypriot and not necessarily connected with the property in question) he has "lost" it. Unless something like Erol's proposals for deferred payment is included, quite a lot of people will face destitution and homelessness in their old age, and the UK does not exactly make it easy for them to return to which is now in any case a strange country to them.

Just to throw something else into the equation, my understanding is that some of the expropriated land in the north which has been sold on is not exchange land but 'TMD' (gift) land, so there is no land in the south to offset any of the compensation!

Ragged Robin wrote:Can I raise two further points:

Please do.

Ragged Robin wrote:1. Dave bought his property direct from Mehmet ..... (I wont re quote your whole message , just enough to hopefully show what my reply is to)

Georgios would have been provided with some where to live after 74 by the post 74 RoC government. However apart from a few statisticaly tiny exceptions, he would not have been given freehold title to that dwelling. That dwelling that he now lives in may well be more modern and convenient to his circumstances now but I would be reluctant to say he did "well out of the deal". Loosing ones home and being forced to start again somewhere else must have been a hugely distressing experience for both Mehmet and Gerogios. In any case Georgios is due some compensation for what he lost in the North. If he is happy where he is now and wants to stay there, then he can take that compensation not as cash money but as the property he is now living in and has lived in, assuming that it was TC pre 74 or built on TC land pre 74, not as a 'tenant' but as freehold owner. If the value of the property he is now in is greater than that which he lost in the North, then the shortfall will have to be made up somehow. Lets say the property he is in now is worth double that of what he lost, then I could see a scenario where by he became 50% freehold owner of that property and the state retained 50% ownership, to be recovered when he or his heirs sell the property.

Ragged Robin wrote:I have heard that - on both sides - allocation of property on the "points system" was inequitable - some getting worse and some better and that which they had left. Is this anomaly being addressed in the negotiations? Who gets the compensation?

There was no 'points system' in the South. GC who lost land and property in the North as a result of the events of 74 were not given freehold title to TC properties left behind in the South. Those who required it were given 'social housing', the bulk of which was TC pre 74 or was built on land that was TC pre 74.
As for the North there can be no doubt that there were inequities in the points system. I think such a system even in the most politically advanced countries would have such inequities in a similar scenario. So even more so in what was the North post the events of 74. However there is simply no practical way, that I can see, to 'unwind' such inequities as part of a future settlement. Those TC who did badly through the points system will have 'lost' and those who did well 'gained' - that is the situation with the status quo we have now and would essentially still be the situation post a settlement.

Ragged Robin wrote:2. Under the Anan plan it was proposed that compensation be based on the value of the property at pre 1974 prices. Presumably most land in the North will be considerable more valuable now (even without taking into account building on it, or improvement of existing buildings at the expense of the new owners) . Does anyone know what the basis is now ? Like quite a lot of people here, George had sufficient saving to cover emergencies but due to , let us say, unethical practices of others (not necessarily Cypriot and not necessarily connected with the property in question) he has "lost" it. Unless something like Erol's proposals for deferred payment is included, quite a lot of people will face destitution and homelessness in their old age, and the UK does not exactly make it easy for them to return to which is now in any case a strange country to them.

We do not yet know the details of what is being negotiated currently. In some ways this discussion potentially applies regardless of a settlement or not in the sense that the IPC does exist already. The issue of on what 'year' compensation should be based is undoubtedly a contentious one. There are for example some GC who feel that it should not even be based on value today, let alone historic values, but should be based on what property in the North might be worth at some point in the future post a settlement when prices between North and South have 'normalised'. To me it seems basing the values on as they are just before the settlement would come into force is the fairest practical solution.

guru wrote:Just to throw something else into the equation, my understanding is that some of the expropriated land in the north which has been sold on is not exchange land but 'TMD' (gift) land, so there is no land in the south to offset any of the compensation!

Yes this is another reason why there is a 'shortfall' that needs to be made up above and beyond straight "exchange".

My Aunt, who's husband was taken in 1964 in broad daylight from his place of work as an assistant manager of Barclays Bank, by armed militia thugs, murdered and his body dumped in a well in Ayia Napa, was given 'points' by the TRNC post 74 as 'compensation' for this loss. In turn she exchanged those 'points' for a pre 74 GC property (land and house) in which she has lived and continues to live since it was awarded to her. This house then has no direct 'balancing' property in the South. I think under what I have been calling 'my' system, she should only be liable for the same 30-40% contribution to a compensation fund that I or Dave would be liable for, even though our property / land does have some 'balancing' property in the South and hers does not. In effect the contribution by me and Dave (which is offset by the increased value our properties will get post solution) can then be used to meet that needed for her 60-70% that the 'state' is paying for. This seems as fair to me to all parties concerned as can be in such a situation.

Having said that I think how justified such TMD / Gift allocations of property in the North were is something that could be looked at again after the fact as part of a settlement. If it can be shown in a given case that a certain person got TMD / Gift land in the North for no other reason that they had the right contacts then no I do not think 60-70% of the compensation due on that land should be met by the state at all. They should in fact be obliged to pay all the compensation for that property or be forced to give it up, though I think in reality this is unlikely to happen.

Erol, can you please explain what might possibly happen with the house I purchased last year in Alagadi. For your information I bought the villa on land which was exchanged title . Would I be liable paying towards the compensation or is compensation paid by the owners of the land who were given the land as exchange for land in the South ?

DenizIsmail wrote:Erol, can you please explain what might possibly happen with the house I purchased last year in Alagadi. For your information I bought the villa on land which was exchanged title . Would I be liable paying towards the compensation or is compensation paid by the owners of the land who were given the land as exchange for land in the South ?

I am happy to try but please do understand I am no expert and this is all speculation derived from a newspaper report suggesting that Turkey wants the TRNC to pass law amending the operation of the IPC such that when compensation is paid to GC by the IPC they will provide 60 or 70% of that compensation and the current user will provide the remaining 40 or 30%. From that we are further speculating what might happen if that because the 'norm' in the event of a general settlement.

If the land was GC owned pre 74 and it was empty land then the pre 74 GC owner is due compensation for that land (but not the house that was subsequently built on it). Let us say the land alone is worth today 40,000. That is what needs to be given to the pre 74 GC owner. It could be given in alternate property worth 40,000 or it could be given in cash. Either way under this proposal you would be liable for 30 or 40% of that 40,000. That is 12,000 or 16,000.

That understandably may seem very unfair to you. However you would personally 'get' something for that 12 or 16,000 in return for that 12 or 16,000 liability. What you would get would be an overnight increase in the value of the land and house that would be more than the 16,000 liability you now have. What is more you could (under 'my' proposals) choose to defer paying that 16,000 until you or your heirs sell the land and house and thus you are able to realise this increase in value that offsets the liability.

I hope that makes some kind of sense ?

Erol: I do not want to see hard hearted or selfish, or disrespectful of the suffering of many Cypriots and I am very sorry to hear about your Aunt's losses.But if I understood your post correctly it would mean that expats who purchased property would be liable for compensation for loss, pain and suffering in a war for which they were in no way responsible. (there could be an argument that the British Government of the time held some responsibility but that would be a charge on the British taxpayer in general not individuals and anyway I dont want to go down that road here)

Also harking back to the Anan plan , at that time most expats had bought individual houses (or leased them in special circumstances such as Karmi/Karaman) allowance was made for the fact that that had spent a lot of money improving derelict or substandard houses and thus increased their value (and quite often that of other property in the area). The value of land that was previously non productive and is now sought after building land must have increased dramatically.

A potential future increase in the value of the property (and that in my mind is problematical anyway bearing in mind the effect on the cost of living of the RoC of entry to the EU) it may not happen in time for someone elderly is living permanently in the property , already funding their own health care (and substantially contributing to the economy in the process) and just cannot afford the level of compensation suggested. You suggestion (in effect a mortgage on the property) is the only positive suggestion I have heard , but as far as I know it is not actually "on the table" and anyway what about dependents? Suppose one of a couple died and the other unable to cope alone, had sell to fund sheltered housing - only to be faced by a debt on the proceeds - and what about interest?

It is very easy to to see "Dave" (and particularly swallows) as rich people with expensive villas with swimming pools as holiday homes, and expensive cars, only losing a little bit of a luxurious lifestyle, but there are also expats who bought admittedly cheaply simple old houses, the value of which has not kept up with the modern buidling boom, have made their life here by exercising economy , are already suffering from the post 04 increases in the c.o.l and now appear to be at risk of losing their only home in their old age. No one appears to be thinking about, let alone looking after their interests.

Sadly, what might be; what should be; what ought to be; what we wish to be - are merely subjects for idle discussion.
Those in power will decide, whether they be in power by election or revolution - so we will only know when we are told - and ordered to obey....
So the world continues, and all conjecture is immaterial....

If compensation of 30 or 40% is to be paid then I see a collapse in the property market as most expats will just ditch the property to the highest offer as most will not be able to afford or even want to pay that sort of money ?

Ragged Robin wrote:Erol: I do not want to see hard hearted or selfish, or disrespectful of the suffering of many Cypriots and I am very sorry to hear about your Aunt's losses.But if I understood your post correctly it would mean that expats who purchased property would be liable for compensation for loss, pain and suffering in a war for which they were in no way responsible. (there could be an argument that the British Government of the time held some responsibility but that would be a charge on the British taxpayer in general not individuals and anyway I dont want to go down that road here)

I do not think you are hard hearted, selfish or disrespectful of myself or any suffering my family or any other Cypriots may have suffered. I do think however you have not understood where I am coming from or that I have failed to explain it clearly so I will try again.

There is a shortfall in value between those properties lost by GC in the North and those lost by TC in the south who took 'exchange' properties as a result of the events of 74. That shortfall will have to met by someone, somehow if there is solution (or even if there is not and the IPC continue to function).

There is a real world increase in value for anyone (TC, ex pat , anyone) who currently owns disputed title land / property in the North, should that disputed title become undisputed as the result of the claim from the pre 74 GC getting settled (by the IPC or by general settlement). This 'gain' is not some future speculative gain. It is real and material today as things stand. Property / land in the North that is undisputed today, because it was TC or foreign owned pre 74, is more valuable, more expensive than the equivalent that is still disputed. The market has already priced how much more valuable the land / property is by being undisputed rather than disputed. I estimate that its in the region of 15-20% but any estate agent would probably have a more accurate figure.

So there is a shortfall and anyone (be they TC, expat or whatever) who has disputed property now that sees that property become undisputed because of the pre 74 GC owner getting compensation will see a real world increase in the value of their asset.

I am arguing that it is actual fair that those who will personally gain from such settlements (individual via the IPC or general via a general settlement) contribute in making up this shortfall, provided that their contribution is equal to or less than their gain and provided that they are given reasonable means to do so (like deferring paying this liability until they or their heirs sell the property).

Whether you contribute to the shortfall or not is not determined on if you are an expat or a citizen or not. It is determined solely by if you are in a category that will gain as a result of a settlement or not - if you are TC, expat or whatever. Those who will accrue personal gain should contribute so that those who do not personally gain (again be they expat, tc or whatever) do not have to (via general taxation or the like).

That is what I am suggesting.

Ragged Robin wrote:Also harking back to the Anan plan , at that time most expats had bought individual houses (or leased them in special circumstances such as Karmi/Karaman) allowance was made for the fact that that had spent a lot of money improving derelict or substandard houses and thus increased their value (and quite often that of other property in the area). The value of land that was previously non productive and is now sought after building land must have increased dramatically.

Putting aside leasehold for now, those that have invested in disputed title land / property they have bought have the advantages of that investment in use and in increased value. After a settlement they will still have such, whether they contribute to the shortfall directly individually or do so indirectly via taxation along with a whole load of people (TC and expat alike) who also contribute despite not getting any increase in asset value in return. If the shortfall is paid by only those who also get a value gain, or by everyone , those who get a value gain and those who do not makes no difference to this point as far as I can see ?

That a pre 74 GC owners compensation should be (as I suggest) based on the value of what they lost at todays pre settlement prices and this is unfair because when they lost it the land may not have been 'prime estate' and now due to expansion and surrounding development is 'prime estate' is something that could be argued. However I do not really see it that way. If the pre 74 GC owner had not lost his land in the North as a result of the events of 74, then almost certainly that land would have still have evolved from not prime real estate to prime real estate for exactly the same reasons it has under TRNC administration. Also if you were to say compensation should be paid at pre 74 prices, that cuts both ways. Sure the compensation due to be paid to GC for their losses would be much lower but so too would the value of those properties in the south that can be used as 'exchange' value, still leaving a shortfall.

Ragged Robin wrote:A potential future increase in the value of the property (and that in my mind is problematical anyway bearing in mind the effect on the cost of living of the RoC of entry to the EU) it may not happen in time for someone elderly is living permanently in the property , already funding their own health care (and substantially contributing to the economy in the process) and just cannot afford the level of compensation suggested. You suggestion (in effect a mortgage on the property) is the only positive suggestion I have heard , but as far as I know it is not actually "on the table" and anyway what about dependents? Suppose one of a couple died and the other unable to cope alone, had sell to fund sheltered housing - only to be faced by a debt on the proceeds - and what about interest?

The increase in value that land / property gets as it changes from disputed to undisputed is not really (to my mind at least) a potential increase. It is a real material increase that has already been priced by 'the market' and that you can see here today. To me that increase in value is not 'speculative'. I think in fact there would be post a settlement a boom in investment and increasing values in houses and properties of all categories across Cyprus but more so in the North in the event of a settlement - but that IS speculative.

Imagine an elderly couple living in a property today (they can be TC or expat). Imagine that the property is on disputed title land. Imagine that they paid 120,000 for this land/property and today it is worth 150,000 on the market. Imagine also there is an identical property next door that is the same in every way except it is built on undisputed land. I claim that if the one on disputed land is worth 150,000 on the market today then the one on undisputed land would be worth in the region of 15% more - 172,500

So imagine tragically that without a settlement and any liability one of our elderly couple passes away (rip) and the remaining spouse can no longer afford to live in the house any more such that they have to sell. What they would get is 150,000 minus normal sales taxes.

Now imagine that the same tragic event occurs the day after a settlement of the kind I have suggested and the remaining spouse has to sell their house as a result. Now they would get 172,500 (because they would be selling the undisputed version of the house /land) - their one off 'compensation liability' which if the land the house is built on was valued at say 45,000 just before the settlement would be 13,500 (at 30% liability) or 18,000 (at 40% liability). So net this they would get 159,000 - minus normal sales taxes at 30% liability or 154,500 minus normal sales taxes at 40% liability. So at either rate the remaining spouse would in fact get more from the sale for their house after a settlement (of 'my' type) than they would have got before it.

Ragged Robin wrote:It is very easy to to see "Dave" (and particularly swallows) as rich people with expensive villas with swimming pools as holiday homes, and expensive cars, only losing a little bit of a luxurious lifestyle, but there are also expats who bought admittedly cheaply simple old houses, the value of which has not kept up with the modern buidling boom, have made their life here by exercising economy , are already suffering from the post 04 increases in the c.o.l and now appear to be at risk of losing their only home in their old age. No one appears to be thinking about, let alone looking after their interests.

I am 'Dave'. I bought a house that is built on disputed land. It is not an expensive villa, it has no swimming pool, it is not a holiday home, it is my only home and I put all my life's cash savings into buying it as well as taking on not insignificant borrowing on top to buy it. I live what I consider a simple life. That is why I chose to leave the UK and London to come and live here. I traded wealth via 'earning potential' FOR a simpler life, where I was (hopefully) less rich but more content. I do not not propose what I do because I see 'ex pats' as rich cash cows to be milked and my proposal affect TC and expats the same in any case. I propose it because I believe in and want a settlement to the Cyprus issue and I believe that what I am suggesting is the fairest means to all, expat or citizen, young or old, of dealing with the shortfall in property value north to south that needs to be dealt with if we are to be able to reach an agreement.

turtle wrote:If compensation of 30 or 40% is to be paid then I see a collapse in the property market as most expats will just ditch the property to the highest offer as most will not be able to afford or even want to pay that sort of money ?

Firstly the 'proposal' is that 'current users' contribute 30- 40% of compensation paid to the GC owner for their loss. So no one is proposing they contribute 30 or 40% of the value of their land/property in the North. It is 30 or 40% of the value of what the pre 74 GC owner lost. In the most common scenario where what the pre 74 GC owner lost was bare land and what the current user of the land currently has is land and a house subsequent to 74 built on it, then I calculate that the 40% liability would equate to around 10% - 15% of the current (pre settlement) value of the house and land combined. I am going to lay out how I came to that figure in case I have got it wrong.

I bought my house that was built on disputed land not that long ago for 115,000. Soon after that a plot next to it without a house on it sold for 35,000. Thus I say of the 115,000 I paid for my house , 35,000 was the value of the land and the remainder the value of the house. Thus if this proposal was to be put in place my liability, taking the higher figure, would be 40% of the 35,000 - which is 14,000, or around 12% of the current value of my house / land.

What I also believe to be true is that if the house I bought had of been on undisputed land it would not have cost 115,000. I t would have cost more because it was built on undisputed land. You can talk to an estate agent as to how much more but I think saying it would have been 15% more expensive is a pretty conservative estimate. So on undisputed land it would have cost me 132,250 and not 115,000.

If this proposal were to be introduced and if I could defer my liability to pay it until the house is sold, I would now have a house worth 132,250 and a liability on the sale of that house of 12% of its value (today 14,000). Overall then I am am better off post a settlement, even with the 14,000 liability, by around 3250. Why then would I or anyone else in similar circumstances suddenly decided to 'ditch' my / their property here and leave as a result ?

Erol, thank you for your explanation which was very clear. However, the land my house is now built on was empty and the previous owner built a house on it. I have just renovated the house in full last August . Who pays the compensation? Is it the owners who where exchanged land they lost in the south? ; the owners who built the house? or us who have renovated the house now?

DenizIsmail wrote:Erol, thank you for your explanation which was very clear. However, the land my house is now built on was empty and the previous owner built a house on it. I have just renovated the house in full last August . Who pays the compensation? Is it the owners who where exchanged land they lost in the south? ; the owners who built the house? or us who have renovated the house now?

Under these 'proposals' (and all I have seen is a single newspaper report where a single person claims this is what Turkey wants the TRNC to do) as far as I understand them, you as the 'current user' would pay 30 or 40% of the compensation awarded to the the pre 74 owner for their loss of land (and not for the value of the house on it that was built after) and the TRNC / Turkey would pay 60 or 70%.

erol wrote:

DenizIsmail wrote:Erol, thank you for your explanation which was very clear. However, the land my house is now built on was empty and the previous owner built a house on it. I have just renovated the house in full last August . Who pays the compensation? Is it the owners who where exchanged land they lost in the south? ; the owners who built the house? or us who have renovated the house now?

Under these 'proposals' (and all I have seen is a single newspaper report where a single person claims this is what Turkey wants the TRNC to do) as far as I understand them, you as the 'current user' would pay 30 or 40% of the compensation awarded to the the pre 74 owner for their loss of land (and not for the value of the house on it that was built after) and the TRNC / Turkey would pay 60 or 70%.

I think it's worth pointing out that any such compensation figure will have to offset the perceived value of any former TC land that the owner of the land in the north occupies in the south and wants to become internationally recognised title deed holder of the land in the south... Some notional examples to illustrate

1. Land in north worth £50k, land in south worth £50k - no compensation.
2. Land in north worth £50k, land in south worth £60k - no compensation to GC. compensation to TC?.
3. Land in north worth £50k, land in south worth £40k - £10k compensation Therefore current occupier's 40% would be £4k.

These are only examples to show how a fair system could work... Whether in case 2 the former owner of land in the south would get £10k I don't know - it would seem unfair if all the cases for compensation were for GC's

So if you are the "current user" of the property but have not been granted a Kochan who pays the 40% ?

turtle wrote:So if you are the "current user" of the property but have not been granted a Kochan who pays the 40% ?

Who ever is on the TRNC title deed would be liable - but if you have bought and paid for a property from the kind of seller that is refusing to transfer the deed into your name for some 'nefarious' reason, like they want you to pay his normal taxes first or some other reason, then the chances are they would do the same with this liability as well. At least that is what I imagine would be the case and happen.

According to Erol in msg 18 above, the owner of the land will be responsible for paying compensation. I posed a similar question as my developer (Sercem) took out a mortgage on the land our estate was built upon without owners permission or knowledge and refuses to clear it and issue kocans. I bet the Koop Bank, and others, will be thrilled to pay 40% on the many mortgages on land they have.

The effect on the expatrıate communıty of "compensation" cannot really be judged without reference to other effects of reunification.

Bear in mind that the majority of expats (and of course this applies to many Cypriots also living on exchange land) are pensioners, and have no future prospect of earning, or otherwise adding to their income or raising capital. They may already be living in "reduced circumstances" due to the increased cost of living. The introduction for insance of compulsory health insurance without commensurate access to care may take them below the bread level and they also have to face greater need of increasingly expensive home help as they age. Their property is at the rock bottom end of the market so there is no chance of raising capital or reducing outgoings by downsizing. Any increase on the value of their property would be useless to them because any other property would be commensurately higher.. The expats will have no option but to return to the UK (where they will be unable to purchase and meet other problems) and the not very tender mercies of the NHS while they still have some of their hard earned savings left.. Some have already done so and a lot of us are now thinking of it. Maybe not enough to have a significant effect on the housing market, but also fewer will be tempted to come to Northern Cyprus, or indeed to Cyprus as a whole suffering from the combined problems of membership of the EU and reunification. Maybe their places will be taken by richer people from other Countries but that will only increase a hundredfold the damage to the ecology, culture and beauty of the country done by the different expectations of British Expats, Nor do I share the optimism of those who believe that entry to the EU will do other than further damage the already fragile economy in the NOrth with a resulting fall in property values.

People keep saying that anyone buying "disputed" or "exchange" land should have considered the risk when they bought. Hindsight is a wonderful thing - is it really to be expected that those who bought pre 2004 could have foreseen of a Global Recession and its effects on their finances in the UK , the the UK should place such draconian rules about expatriates generally, nor that the post Anan Plan expansion of expatriates and the introduction of holiday homes would have had such a drastic effect on their way of life and cost of living?

Ragged Robin wrote:The effect on the expatrıate communıty of "compensation" cannot really be judged without reference to other effects of reunification.

Bear in mind that the majority of expats (and of course this applies to many

RR I understand your concerns. I would say that if (and this is a massive if) this proposal were to be implemented and if (again a big if) a system whereby you could defer any liability because of it to when the property is next sold, then really it should not affect your situation if you intend to live out your days in said property. There would be no increase to your day to day cost of living as a result of it. The people such a system would affect the most would be 'speculators' - those who bought multiple properties in the North in the expectation of an increase in value following a settlement referendum vote, as occurred in the lead up to the Annan Plan vote.

The wider effects of a settlement of course may lead to increased cost of living in the North but that would be true if the system we are discussing was in place or not.

Can I ask where this: "The introduction for instance of compulsory health insurance without commensurate access to care" information came from please? I have not heard of this one.

The British Government has stated that it will give up territory within the Sovereign Base Areas (SBA) in order to facilitate settlement.
Greek Cypriot companies have already been granted permission to establish themselves on SBA territory thanks to William Hague when he was Foreign Minister - and this without any reference to the Turkish Cypriot side in complete contradiction of obligations under the 1960 independence settlement.
Surely any future settlement should allow the Turkish Cypriot side to claim a high value for Greek Cypriot use or grant of SBA land to offset any Greek Cypriot claims for compensation!

waddo wrote:Can I ask where this: "The introduction for instance of compulsory health insurance without commensurate access to care" information came from please? I have not heard of this one.

I think RR is just putting it out there as something that could happen in the summary given. A "what if"

It has happened in Turkey.

Dalartokat, thanks. I seem to remember that the great BRS were putting forward this idea for the magic white card but have heard nothing since apart from the new Draft law being passed at the first stage - no further information on that appears available also???

waddo wrote:Dalartokat, thanks. I seem to remember that the great BRS were putting forward this idea for the magic white card but have heard nothing since apart from the new Draft law being passed at the first stage - no further information on that appears available also???

In one respect lets hope you don't but as RR is saying it could put extra pressure on resources for people that live on a fixed income. Other way to look at it, if you can afford it, you will have less worry on finding money for health issues.

Erdogan and his Government being sworn in today, who knows what will happen in the future.

waddo wrote:Can I ask where this: "The introduction for instance of compulsory health insurance without commensurate access to care" information came from please? I have not heard of this one.

I apologise for not making my post clearer and possibly spreading alarm and despondency, my excuse is it was late and I was tired.


I had been told that an article in last week's cyprus Today that said that compulsory contributions to the TRNC state health insurance scheme would be made compulsory for permanent residence but that they would not be able to access the ( anyway very limited facilitites)
.
I should have explained that although I checked the paper I could not find the article referred to, and was hoping someone could throw more light on it.

However, compulsory private medical insurance would have much the same effect since, even IF older residents could get it , existing conditions would be excluded. I can quite understand that the Cypriot dont want to be lumbered with the cost of caring for a lot of expat elderly (particularly since another article says the numbers of their own elderly is increasing) but the result of private medical insurace would mean that expats who were already paying privately would be unable to afford treatment and would suffer dreadfully and the local doctors, dentists, opticians, private clinic etc. would lose money and the state lose tax on it. The only winners would be the big international insurers. At least those of us who are currently funding our own health care get, on the whole, good care in decent surroundings and do not have to suffer from long waiting lists.

Is No attention taken by the TRNC Government of the amount of money and equipment paid back into the TRNC and its inhabitants by ex-pats. Can you remember not many years back when ambulances were staffed by glorified van drivers? When there was no equipment in them. When there was ill-equipped A and E. lacking many of the essentials. When the blood donor system was virtually non existent, When cancer charities hardly existed and there was none of the continuous donations from them as there is now. Is this Government so short sighted and blinkered, not to realise the contributions that ex-pats make to the State health system of this country particularly in the Girne area and the fact that it benefits their own people far more than it benefits ex-pats. And then this government has the gall to insinuate that we might be a drain on the state system. If all ex-pats stopped attending functions and other charity events overnight and stopped contributing, they would certainly notice the difference. Of course that won't happen, we will all keep on contributing, because that is what we do. Its the sort of people we are and this Government know it perfectly well and will continue to take, take, take.

Sophie: I am surprised at you! You forgot to mention the number of dogs that have been taken off the street by Brits and the money the authorities make out of registering etc. And the thriving Veterinary sector who no doubt pay taxes on income derived from Brits!

OK that was a bit of a joke (nicely meant Sophie ) and it is true that historically the Brits also share the responsibility for strays being here in the first place - but 19 years ago there was only one private Vet working from a tiny shop in the Girne district. Now there are at least four to my knowledge between Girne and Catalkoy - mostly with impressive premises and (although very dedicated and hardworking ) doing very nicely thank you. And Goodness knows how many West of Girne. I think at least 50% of their clients must be British.

There are two troubles with your contention :

One is that is is probably only a small portion of the expat community that believe and act on the belief that they should be committed to the country they live in and contribute to its well being. There are still a lot who are "only here for the beer" and if they contribute Charity do so for the look of the thing and/or because it is a cheap form of entertainment. Others like myself have grown old and tired in the process and are no longer able to contribute as much as we would like and are our interests are overlooked both by the Government and fellow Brits..

The other is that it is human nature, whatever race, to resent having to be grateful to people, and Cypriots do have good historical reason for being particularly sensitive and some Brits are rather "in your face" about their charitable activities. Look at how some Turkish Cypriots feel about Turkey and Turkish mainlanders, partly because of the cost of being rescued by Turkey in 1974

Which has made my think - Erol has pointed out that "Brits" in the post in this thread include some British citizens of Cypriot ethnic original, and presumably expats from other non Turkik countries. Where do Mainland Turks stand in the compensation situation? Am I right in thinking that some of them were given land in "disputed" areas and some may actually have bought houses. Those who have bought land purely for development presumably will actually be the main beneficiaries of this supposed increase in value?

From today's Telegraph,... note last paragraph!:

Among the biggest hurdles to securing any deal is the issue of outstanding property left behind on both sides when the populations separated after the 1974 invasion, with 165,000 Greek Cypriots fleeing south and 45,000 Turkish Cypriots going north.
Under terms that are still to be hammered out, most of those who lost property in the conflict will be paid compensation from an international fund which will be raised to pay restitution to those out of pocket as well as fund new governance structures and provide security to the Turkish minority.
Officials said that Britain would contribute to the fund – along with the EU, the US and other international partners. The total costs are still being worked out, but one early estimate was £16 billion, according to the Turkish-Cypriot side.

Britons who own disputed property or land in Northern Cyprus would not – unlike Turkish or Greek Cypriots – be expected to pay compensation out of their own pockets, an official added.