My experience.
My unanswered questions.
My call for justice.

1. Refunds for earlier studio reservations

2. A system problem and a promised temporary placeholder

The sales manager said the developer’s sales system would not accept my details. I understood the system to be unavailable for my purchase. He suggested using my son’s details temporarily so I would not lose the unit, and asked me to obtain my son’s permission.

My son agreed only to the temporary use of his details. I say I was the purchaser: I selected the unit, dealt with the sales team and paid. My son did not independently buy the property. I was told the details would be corrected within days.

I felt pressed to proceed to secure the unit on that basis. The original documentation was signed by me, the sales manager and the agent; my son was not present and did not personally sign it. The seriousness of that arrangement became apparent when his placeholder details appeared in formal purchase documents.

3. The promised correction became a 35% requirement

I was later told that the name change could be processed only after I had paid 35%. I made larger payments in reliance on assurances that this would enable the promised correction. My DLD request records that the developer’s statement dated 25 August 2026 showed purchase payments of 35% of the purchase price.

When I questioned “buyer” and “seller” wording in name-change forms, I was told this was the only way to change the details. I felt compelled to use that process to obtain the promised correction. I understood it to be an administrative mechanism, not an actual sale from my son to me.

That account of pressure is not a finding of legally established duress or a forged signature. My position is that my son should not be required to sign as seller for a transaction we say never occurred.

4. An offer saying the SPA was available before signing

The supplied offer’s declaration D acknowledges that the seller had made the SPA and disclosure statement available for review before the offer was entered into, and that the purchaser was satisfied with their form.

I say I did not have the SPA to review before committing on the basis described above. That is a central concern: the acknowledgement in the document does not match my experience of what I was given or able to assess.

I want the versions, delivery records and signing chronology examined, rather than assume that a printed acknowledgement proves the opportunity was actually provided.

5. A SPA in my son’s name, followed by a purported resale

The supplied SPA’s particulars name Azizi Developments LLC as seller and my son as purchaser, with an effective date of 29 July 2026. The original offer also names my son. A later supplied offer names me, bears a date of 17 September 2025 and shows a print date of 27 August 2026. The significance of those different dates needs explanation; a later print date alone does not prove unlawful backdating.

Documentation was couriered addressed to my son. I understood the proposed process to require him to act as seller and me to buy from him. There was no negotiated sale between us and no consideration paid by me to him.

My DLD request quotes the developer’s 19 August 2026 account entry as “NOC FEE INCOME - Resale”, AED 5,000, plus a further AED 250 entry. I had been discussing a name correction. The same request records a paid “TITLE DEED @4%” charge of the original registration amount and raises the risk of a further charge if a second sale were registered.

Those are questions about what was documented and charged—not a determination that a second government fee has actually been imposed.

6. Airbnb was the investment purpose

I wanted to expand my Airbnb / holiday-home portfolio, rather than buy this one-bedroom unit as my home. I raised that requirement before buying and report being assured that it would be no problem.

The SPA restricts permitted use to residential single-family use and compliance with the SPA and constitutional documents. It does not expressly give me the holiday-home right I had expected. The supplied review note also identifies broad disposal, consent and fee provisions as matters requiring clarification.

I am concerned the terms could prevent or burden the use I intended. The earlier review does not establish an express blanket Airbnb prohibition. The contract, community rules, licensing requirements and relevant authorities must be checked before anyone makes that legal conclusion. I requested written protection and answers.

7. Completion assurances and satellite concerns

A representative I knew as Zulfi stated that she was not working at Azizi and assured me the project was 80% complete. I was troubled by that assurance because satellite images I reviewed appeared to show no building at the location I understood to be Block 16E.

The conversation, its date, the area to which “80%” referred, the image dates and the identification of the block all require verification. Satellite images alone are not an official completion assessment. I want the dated, project-specific DLD/RERA technical record compared with the representations made to me.

The supplied SPA lists anticipated completion as Q4 2027. The supplied offer payment schedule lists the completion instalment on 31 December 2026. I seek an explanation of that difference and a fair resolution of its effect on the purchase.

8. Questions and amendments first; documents were still sent

My stated terms for proceeding were that my questions be answered and the SPA amended. Instead, I received a call that I describe as simply saying “hello”, without resolving those issues, and the SPA was forwarded despite my request to resolve them first. I returned that delivery unopened.

This was a later delivery; it does not mean I had never inspected any earlier or other copy. I distinguish the copy I examined from the delivery I sent back. I want the correspondence and courier records to establish the sequence accurately.

Sending a document does not itself establish my agreement to its terms. I remain dissatisfied that my requests were not substantively answered.

9. Escrow details and the payment trail

Across the payment process, I received changing payment links or gateways—four changes over the year, to my recollection—and a direct transfer was returned to my bank. Card payments appeared easier to complete. I have not been able to establish for myself that every purchase payment reached the correct project escrow account.

Both the original offer (escrow details, page 4) and the supplied SPA (clause 10) identify Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank and AZIZI VENICE 16 ESCROW, with the same IBAN ending 20278. Those documents therefore do supply matching escrow details. What remains unresolved for me is the reconciliation of actual payments and any different instructions I received.

I am seeking the bank- and regulator-confirmed project account and my own deposit ledger, reconciled with transfer receipts, card settlement records, returned funds and developer allocations. Government and administrative charges should be identified separately from purchase instalments.

Read the escrow law and comparison of what is required with what the available record shows.

10. Trying to obtain help and official answers

DLD: difficult navigation and unavailable project information

I contacted the Dubai Land Department to seek factual answers about my purchase, registration, escrow and the construction status of my particular development. I found the website difficult to navigate, with a chatbot attempting to answer questions without giving me the project-specific answers I needed. For a prolonged period, I could not obtain the progress information for the particular development through the website.

I asked DLD for the official information rather than rely on sales assurances or my interpretation of satellite images. These difficulties describe my experience of accessing the service; they do not establish that no official progress record existed or that other users had the same problem.

Approaching the office associated with the escrow law

I also contacted the office I understood to be associated with the relevant lawmakers, raising my escrow-law concerns and complaints. I did not receive the substantive answers I was seeking. I wondered whether my emails had been filtered or whether the department did not consider the questions something it would answer. I cannot establish why the correspondence did not produce a substantive response.

Seeking police advice about suspected irregularities

I sought advice from the police about aspects of the case that I believed might warrant criminal investigation: potentially incorrect payment-account instructions, possible falsification of completion information or dates, concerns about the authenticity or attribution of buyer signatures, and the irregular placeholder arrangement. I wanted to know whether the records supported an offence and what should be investigated.

These were concerns I raised for assessment, not findings by the police or a court. As explained above, the supplied offer and SPA contain matching escrow details; the actual payment trail still needs reconciliation. The different completion dates require explanation but do not by themselves prove falsification. My account is that I signed the original paperwork while my son was absent; use of his details does not by itself establish that somebody forged his signature. The originals, signing history and any purported signatures need independent examination.

Contacting an authority or seeking police advice does not mean that criminal charges were accepted, laid or proved. I want a careful assessment of the evidence and a clear answer about the appropriate process.

11. The financial and personal cost of unanswered questions

While trying to clarify the handover date, I asked for the payment plan to be amended to reflect any delay. I was not willing to have my money tied up indefinitely while being unable to establish when the property would be delivered. That money could otherwise have been put to work in another investment. This is my concern about the financial consequences; any claim for a particular loss or lost income would need separate evidence and legal assessment.

Considerable time passed while I struggled to obtain answers. I also asked whether Azizi could provide a unit that was already built. Neither an acceptable alternative nor the resolution I sought restored my confidence. I no longer have faith in the developer.

“A property investment should have been an exciting and happy experience. Mine became a nightmare of unanswered questions, uncertainty and months of trying to be heard.”

I experienced customer care’s handling of my concerns as deeply disrespectful. It made me feel worthless, as though my questions, money and time did not matter. The responses and lack of meaningful resolution left me feeling that there was no intention to resolve my issues. That is how the experience affected me; I cannot know every representative’s intentions.

Even if the property were eventually completed, I do not feel that it could give me the happy memories I originally hoped for. The investment has become associated with distress and a loss of trust. My request for a remedy arises from the representations, disputed documentation and unresolved issues I have described.

12. The resolution I seek

I say that, to date, neither an acceptable alternative payment plan nor the refunds I seek has been provided. My complaint concerns what I consider failures to deliver the assurances, disclosure and resolution on which I relied. Whether a contractual completion obligation is already overdue must be assessed against the applicable date and terms.

Earlier requests included clarification of handover, an amended payment plan or an already-built replacement unit. After the prolonged effort to obtain answers, my confidence has deteriorated. I now seek a lawful exit and refund, together with assessment of any interest or compensation the evidence and law support.

I want independent investigation, a fair financial remedy and accountability where wrongdoing is proved. I invite other purchasers to share comparable experiences privately so qualified advisers can assess coordinated proceedings, lawful recovery and any basis for regulatory or criminal referral.