What you read on the internet is not necessarily the truth.
What you hear from others is not necessarily the truth.
As professionals, we should all look for a rounded point of view – to understand the issues from all sides and judge matters when we have the full facts.
There are two sides to every story…
Glenn has chosen not to respond directly to the many false accusations, claims and statements made about him. However, on this page we lay out facts in cases where Glenn Armstrong has been incorrectly accused or false information has been spread by others.
We ask you to judge for yourself once you have the full information.
We would happily discuss any concerns in full and answer any specific questions relating to these matters. Please call 01908 255555.
In September 2015 a court agreement concluded a dispute between Teresa Rolland and G&A Properties.
This court case was initiated by G&A Properties and took Teresa Rolland to court to demonstrate there had been no wrong-doing.
At the end of the case, a public statement was agreed by both parties. This key segment of this, as agreed by both parties, is as follows and written as a statement from Teresa Rolland:
“The reason I refused to give a redemption statement when Mr Armstrong was trying to repay me for Broadwater was because Mr Armstrong was only offering £20,000 of my armchair fee back I did not think it was fair that I was only paid back the contractual amount.”
You can read between the lines here. The key point is “contractual” amount was paid and the agreement was honoured in full, as confirmed in Teresa Rolland’s written statement above.
Here is the established order of events in this matter – once again, you should judge for yourself.
1. The Property concerned was purchased on 27 February 2015 under the partnership programme. Sue Baker was initially offered a Loan Agreement for this transaction, which would have given her a set timescale and terms and conditions for the funds she paid for this project.
2. In broad terms, the project projections were as follows:
a. Purchase price of £180,000 (against a property which previously was under offer for £220,000).
b. Refurbishment costs of £14,000.
c. Anticipated sale price after refurbishment – £250,000.
d. Gross profit (before other costs) – £56,000.
3. Sue Baker was aware that we already had a potential buyer in place to purchase the property following completion of the refurbishment works and therefore calculated that she would earn more proceeding as Joint Venture Partner rather than a Lender and entered into the Joint Venture Partnership which would net her a 33% division split of the profits as per the Heads of terms attached.
4. Unfortunately, the Purchase fell through and it took longer than expected to find a buyer. In fact, we had a number of failed sales which has clearly increased the holding costs. Another added expense was having to refinance as the term of the initial bridging loan expired.
5. A buyer was found in September 2016 and we initially had hoped to delay the refinance as they are costly and we did not want to increase the shortfall on this property. However, our Solicitors then informed us that Sue Baker had registered a restriction on the register. This registration delayed and continues to delay the sale as we are having to negotiate the amount due to Sue Baker through the legal channels and via Solicitors. We have been close on a number of occasions of losing our current buyer. In view of the delays we had no other option but to refinance which has increased the cost of the project.
6. On 28th October 2016, we offered to her £102,000.00 as a gesture of goodwill and advised that we would bear the losses on the basis that she removed her defamatory comments made on the internet. Our letter containing this offer can be viewed here. This was refused which is when we had no alternative but to instruct Solicitors of our own which meant yet further expense.
7. The internet postings refer to fraud and this issue was addressed by our Solicitors letter of 21st November. Within the same letter we request that the restriction is removed to allow the sale to proceed.
8. In November we withdraw our offer due to the issues caused by her delays. The matters are in hands of Solicitors and her actions continue to delay the sale, incur more losses and increased costs.
To get your eight FREE videos simply pop your primary email address in the box below. After confirming your email, your first video will arrive in your mail box.
One thing, you will need to add my email address to your address book. By doing, this you avoid any of the emails I send you ending up in your spam folder. One final thing; I hate spammers. So I will NEVER share your email with any third party.