Peyman Arabshahi had planned to move back to his hometown Gothenburg with his girlfriend in 2021. Therefore, he signed a preliminary agreement for an apartment in Karlatornet. But as the admission is now delayed for a year, they no longer want to complete the purchase.

- Our life situation we are in right now, we have other priorities. The focus is on establishing us and forming a family and then a year's delay is far too long, says Peyman Arabshahi in SVT's consumer program Plus.

Over a hundred customers have not approved the delay

He is one of more than 100 of Serneke's customers who have so far not accepted the delay. Several of them have also canceled the advance agreement. Peyman Arabshahi is one of them and he is demanding back the $ 150,000 he paid in advance for the apartment. Some Sernekes subsidiary Karlastaden Development AB has refused because they believe the agreement is binding despite the delay.

- It is a big problem that Serneke refuses to pay back the money. Because we can't buy another home either and we don't want to risk having two homes, Peyman Arabshahi tells Plus.

The company takes legal battle

The company's tenant-owner association, which is legally the one selling the apartments, has instead gone out to the customers with an agreement in which they write that the customers must confirm that they have received information about the delay and thus also approve it.

- We believe the agreements are binding, says Leif Danielsson, CEO of Sernekes subsidiary Karlastaden Development AB

What do you base it on, that you think you are right?

- It's a big project and a long time between sales to the end and we have informed the customers well in advance.

He now requests that clients contact lawyers and that clients may take the matter to the District Court for review if they want their money back.

- We want a legal review, says Leif Danielsson, CEO of Karlastaden Development AB.

On the other hand, the lawyers SVT Plus has spoken to say that the customers have the right to cancel the agreements. And, in addition, they believe that the supplementary agreement where the tenant-owner association invites its clients to sign is not legally binding.