A PROPERTY boss has been banned from acting as a company director for 14 years after investigators found he misled customers into buying land at 23 times the amount he paid for it.

Carlos Alesandro Paul Amaya-Torres, 55, from Brighton, was the sole director of a company which went under in 2013 leaving debts in excess of £2 million.

Towers Property Development Limited, based in Hove, was found to have overstated the value of land they sold, and told prospective buyers that planning permission was imminent when in fact it was unlikely.

Following an investigation by the Insolvency Service, Mr Amaya-Torres has accepted a disqualification undertaking, for a period of 14 years, which is due to commence on February 1.

A disqualification undertaking has the effect that without specific permission of a court, a person with a disqualification cannot act as a director of a company.

Additionally they may not take part, directly or indirectly, in the promotion, formation or management of a company or limited liability partnership, or be a receiver of a company’s property.

The investigation found misleading statements were made by Towers’ sales agents on the phone and in written marketing materials.

Customers were led to believe that the parcels of land sold by Towers would soon obtain planning permission, when in reality there was little prospect of this.

Towers also failed to inform customers of vital information, such as the risks of making an investment, the planning history in relation to the land and the planning restrictions that applied at the time of the sale.

The land was sold for up to 23 times what it had cost Towers to buy.

In 2011 Towers was subject to enforcement action by Trading Standards and the company eventually agreed to include prominent warnings in their promotional literature, but buyers from before this period told the Insolvency Service that they would not have done so if Towers had provided them with all the relevant information.

And in 2012 Brighton and Hove City Council won a High Court case against the company, winning costs of £92,000 costs, because it was selling plots of agricultural as “low risk” investments when the Council argued it was “high-risk”and had little or no prospect of ever obtaining planning permission.