El blog de Maria

ads said:
Wednesday, September 24, 2014 @ 11:29 PM

Thank you so much, Maria. The debate continues I’m afraid!

You mentioned the following "there are other ones who did not care about the delays, abandonned their investments and are now trying to regain a benefit which can be considered out of the legitimate protection that Law 57/68 is providing to home buyers. "
BUT, how do you discriminate between those who are looking for retrospective benefit, from those who had every reason to be fearful of proceeding until sufficient case law was in place to protect them, or no win no fee opportunities came into existence (since they would have been financially compromised).
But far more worryingly, how do you discriminate from those who have delayed until such time as judicial rulings are consistently enforced across all autonomous regions, or until such time as judgements relating to Ley 57/68 IN ITS ENTIRETY are consistently achieved, or that compromising legal loopholes in the conveyancing system are correctly addressed?
There have been contra legem rulings and inconsistent judicial rulings, (highly questionable), which MUST be recognised and addressed for trust to be sufficiently restored, and sadly for the Supreme Court to suggest otherwise, or deny admissibility for consideration of cases in such instances where rulings have not taken into account all the facts relating to illegalities or manipulative ploys to avoid legal responsibility, does not demonstrate moral authority or provide sufficient reassurances to restore faith in the system of justice in Spain.
To rely solely upon discretionary moral authority as opposed to legal certainty (which is sadly open to abuse and inconsistency) does a grave disservice to innocent purchasers and continues to place them at grave risk.
Only when consistent rulings, (across all autonomous regions with timely justice in place that do not leave innocent purchasers worrying for a decade (and more) if they will ever retrieve their monies according to EXISTING LAW, with recognition of Ley 57/68 in its entirety (no cherry picking!) with timely provision of LFO's according to end dates stipulated in purchase contract) are recognised by the judiciary, can we safely say, hand on heart, that purchasers are not at continuing risk from a legal lottery.
How can the Supreme Court discriminate against those understandably waiting for all of the above to be consistently recognised/enacted in Spain, before they dare proceed to litigation for their cancellation rights and return of monies?
IMHO inalienable rights according to LEY57/68 should never be subjected to time constraints so long as innocent purchasers are exposed to continuing risks of this nature, risks that are sadly totally beyond their control.
As for "Rules shall be construed according to the proper meaning of their wording " you only have to review Keith Rule's opening paragraph of his educative BG petition which states the following "….It appears that 40 years after Ley 57/68 was implemented we are experiencing the same “repeated abuse” and “obvious criminal acts” which unfortunately for many innocent purchasers has again caused “irreparable damage to trust and good faith. This is a serious public order matter that the Spanish Authorities must tackle immediately. We now have the exact same situation of a serious disruption of social life” , for everyone to appreciate the reasons why this law was instigated in the first place nor fail to comprehend the proper meaning of this law, and realise why it needs to be enforced in its entirety immediately, (with recognition of mandatory provision of LFO by the date of completion according to the date mutually agreed in the purchase contract). Likewise comprehension that an offplan purchase contract without completion deadline clearly expressed is null and void (a classic example of manipulative ploy to avoid compliance with an existing law).

But this has implications far wider than just that Maria when you take account the failure to adhere to the rule of law appertaining to timely justice with respect for the due process of law.
Much of this comes back to Keith Rule's astute observation from the outset of his petition, of the need for a specialised court to effectively and efficiently address these ongoing problems, which ironically would have saved time and effort for all, and in the process would have restored faith in the system of justice in Spain.
It's as though innocent purchasers are being made the scapegoat for a system that over this past decade has tried to address these grave injustices in a highly lengthy and piecemeal fashion, rather than recognising the wider perspective of the need to adhere to existing law, taking due regard for the major loopholes that we are now sadly exposing. It’s important not to lose sight of the harsh reality where during this last decade injustices were compromised by lack of timely enforcement thus further exposing the purchaser to major risks such as developers asset stripping or going into administration in the excessively lengthy interim periods whilst they were awaiting justice.

With reference to “Most buyers in the real estate boom were not well informed, other ones, it is true, were not caring too much for completion deadlines as they were possibly buying an investment product to be resold. “ I don’t understand the significance being made here with regard to adherence to existing law. It’s important to note that developers were happy to settle out of court when prices were rising exponentially (as they could attain good profit in the process), but as the market declined they then looked for ways to avoid their responsibilities with regard to adherence of Ley 57/68.
IMHO, moral authority to adhere to existing law with timely justice and effective recording mechanisms in place for judicial review/monitoring purposes are a pre-requisite for any trust to be restored........ but this requires a commitment from the Government and a willingness of good lawyers to work together to ensure the legal lottery and loopholes and manipulative ploys of this compromising nature are adequately exposed and thereby hopefully addressed.
But in the interim, sadly, so long as difficulty remains to defend in courts (in other words the judiciary and/or Supreme Court fail to consistently recognise the law in its entirety and/or the loopholes which continue to place innocent purchasers at grave risk), the only fallback that purchasers appear to have at their disposal is for them to come together in an organised fashion (BG petitioners and all those suffering from LFO abuse) to expose that Spain is not consistently adhering to existing law and is failing to safeguard the rule of law and the principal of legal certainty in a timely fashion that respects the due process of law.

But why should they have to take such extreme measures, when in reality there is a perfectly good law already in place to protect them and a credible practical solution as advocated by Keith Rule several years ago, in the form of a specialised court that could speedily enforce the law and bring about well overdue reform to close the legal loopholes that sadly make a mockery of the current conveyancing system in Spain (which in itself negatively affects economic growth and investor trust) ?

To summarise:
Any conveyancing/judicial system that does not consistently enforce INALIENABLE/cancellation rights and return of monies according to existing law and in a timely fashion that respects the due process of law, or fails to recognise the requirement for mandatory provision of LFO’s according to Ley 57/68, whilst continuing to place innocent purchasers at risk in this way without taking into account all of the above, is bound to beg the question, is this systemic breakdown and a threat to the rule of law by not adhering to the principal of legal certainty nor entitlement to effective judicial protection?.

antifreeze said:
Thursday, September 25, 2014 @ 10:21 AM

Thank you Ads - that is fairly succinctly expressed in plain language. You are right that Developers were happy for buyers to lose their deposits when markets were good - inserting clauses to keep such deposits, in what can be deemed as 'unfair' contracts. They took the deposits and kept the property too and re-sold for more profit. Then the world changed - so did the attitude of friendly developers....and there were delays, dirty contracts - came to light.

When the tide turned, many sat back - to see if they would loose or get their deposits back for delays, lack of BG and misrepresentation and of course, prices dropped and the 100% mortgages that were promised as part of many off plan 'deals', no longer available. Remember prices and sales slumped across the world, not just in Spain - mostly due to poor bank lending/losses/debts/foreclosures on over pricing and risk taking. Banks agreed massively to purchase off plan properties, without due diligence to affordability - in the good times, they too looked at the increase in predicted property prices in Spanish gold rush - thus THEIR assets would be safe. People walked in to Spain, offered fantastic scenarios by developers and banks, lawyers in co-hoots: reserve NOW with your savings (deposit) get 100% mortgage, values go up - sell one, keep one to live in and rent the third - and with 100% mortgage and increase, you get your original deposit back and a profit! No brainer - buyers were led to believe it was all good and no one checked salary, ability to pay if rates went up or prices went down. Many investors, buyers did this as that is what was SOLD! We were not ALL stupid professional; we had savings and homes in the UK....and aspirations for a better life.

The profiteers at the time:
*The estate agents who took their fees from developers with hard sales and working with brokers - supposedly for mortgages on offer without proper checks - they made the figures look good on paper and encouraged you to BUY BUY!
*The developers who managed sales at high prices - taking deposits, without checks for mortgages before agreeing contracts - no mortgages in place - in many cases, no contingencies when markets dropped as borrowing became difficult. Many sat like rabbits in head lights.
*People losing their deposits - developers kept them as per contracts signed at reservation.
*Delays in completions - due to having no building licence but offering whole estates with luxury facilities - eager buyers not making checks or told, by the floods of people round empty sites putting down deposits to buy - escorted by pushy agents working with developers to sign you to deals which were just a fancy card board display, luxury brochures....and no substance. In the case of Corvera, an airport for international influx.
* Lawyers - appointed by agents and developers for a smooth transaction - keeping everyone in the loop - paid for by buyers but there is more to that! The profited from many streams.

The climate changes - it goes cold and suddenly, no one is available to talk, to help and there is a period of uncertainty. Prices drop and delays in completions - open ended or go beyond the dates specified but NO ONE really know what to do. Strangely, that is when the lawyers who were there to help you disappeared and bailiffs appointed to threaten people! Also, borrowing becomes difficult in Spain, UK, EU, world over.

Lawyers, agents, developers all sit and wait too - working together to sort out the mess. So they devised ways to force completions with threats when they had not even fulfilled the basic terms of their own contracts! MRI and other mighty agents, go to ground - abroad or disappear! With their assets.

They relied on several things-
(i) We did not speak Spanish
(ii) We trusted in lawyers who remained silent
(iii) We would not be able to come over every week to ask or see what was happening and rely on forums, emails, calls etc - always a risk when buying abroad.
(iv) Ignorance of Spanish law - which the purchasing lawyers, were perhaps instructed not to make contact with buyers to explain their rights with such contracts? Plus, unfair contracts.
(v) They did not permit anyone to walk away when prices dropped.
(vi) local courts, were not applying the law fairly - which gave them developers and some who have sold out, a chance of forcing completions where they could or keeping the deposits with penalties (contrary to their own contracts, plus the purchase lawyers were not able to help - who did they work for???)
(vi) Local judges would find in favour of local developers who had already profited, to save face, their economy and other reasons for not applying the laws of the land - foreigners not likely to protest or even be present in courts - so you do not have to face the real victims.
The injury caused to buyers has not been researched - people who have put their lives on hold, sold their homes or become ill for ever setting foot in Spain. Spain has lost this generation of trusted investors/buyers - who had money, lost it there and will not go back. WHY? Because, there are laws BUT not applied for victims. The law helps benefit those who can profit again in the system.

This is what keeps the wheels oiled and turning - if the original laws were enforced and applied, then there would be certainty and people would not be sitting on the fence - one way or the other, one would know how to proceed. The lottery of judges and courts, depends on the place, time, and people on the day - HOW CAN THAT BE LAW?

THE LAW IN SPAIN - the evidence and burden of proof placed on you to ensure you are innocent as the law, will not protect you, even if it exists to protect your rights, you have to source it and still fight for it's application as courts remain ignorant or are naive about their own laws. Thus, you could get a rotten decision with costs, without any rules applied or have an informed judge who abides by the rules.

In Spain, even with EU rulings, one has to fight to prove their existence and worse still, go through procedures to prove they exist, against all the abuses in the first instance. Time wise, it can take years and cost wise, eat into people's savings again - benefit? Developers disappear - and the consumers, lose out again, with debt to lawyers. So some who have sat on the fence, are in the best place as those who dutifully completed or those fighting in courts, have lost much - because of irregularities and lack of obligations. No doubt some developers lost out too, but many made their money at the beginning of the chain with dishonest contracts which the law seems to have overlooked! Only know of one case, where the Developer was jailed for misrepresentation.

WHY CAN'T JUDGES and COURTS work within the law that is set out? Why do they avoid these laws and cherry pick to punish people for investing in their country with money that is the back bone of their economy? How short sighted and punitive to assume foreigners should not be afforded their entitlement to good law. This is crippling Spain and others who believed in EU regulations would protect them.

sandra said:
Thursday, September 25, 2014 @ 1:02 PM

Antifreeze you have it in a nutshell. Anyone reading this cannot fail to be shocked at the shoddy and criminal treatment metered out by the Spanish property industry with the apparent backing of the Spanish legal system. It seems unbelievable that it could happen when one views it from a UK residents position. Unfortunately there are still thousands of us still around to testify to the truth and who are still waiting for the return of our substantial (life changing) deposits, plus legal interest. In my case it has been a nine and a half year wait.
I particularly like, 'The injury caused to buyers has not been researched - people who have put their lives on hold, sold their homes or become ill for ever setting foot in Spain'.
Mental breakdowns and stress related health problems have caused untold damage to peoples lives.
No-one has really cared or have purposely ignored what in the UK would have resulted in claims for major amounts of damages as a result of such treatment.
Thank you.

antifreeze said:
Thursday, September 25, 2014 @ 2:52 PM

Sandra - no one dares to acknowledge the above; there are many more untold truths about what is really happening in the Spanish Property market with negligence towards foreign buyers. It is virtually impossible to sue a lawyers for their parts in these purchases - they rest with ease knowing this. One is left to make spurious assumptions as low level courts do not apply existing laws, but for some reason, come up with findings to punish buyers in favour of local developers.

The problem is that once you have identified something is SERIOUSLY wrong in a system, you have to have measures in place to fix it! To fix this, people have to be compensated - that is another risk Spanish authorities won't take as it may reveal too much dirt brushed under the carpet - the lumps are easy to see, but hard to clean up as thy are stuck so fast, endemic in what most honest people did not expect within the EU status of Spain.

We had contracts with lawyers present at signing (we were not lawyers and accepted the terms blindly perhaps) contracts available within a few days to take our deposits with MRI - massive agency to give us advice offer services, facilities, free flights, cars to pick us up and most reassuringly of all, Bank Guarantees promised, income, mortgages on tap. They ALL disappeared when prices crashed! Who was being protected then? Not the consumers of such profiteers - it has left people fighting to survive this or too afraid to speak up.

Developers have taken away rights, with backing of courts with altered terms of contracts, not allowing certain rights to be exercised in the hope people will just get fed up and complete at inflated prices, and then....let the banks deal with it when keys are handed back! That's another legal process - not simple in Spanish Law....and finally, asset strip you in the UK, which everyone should stand up to!

WE, now neglected and impoverished consumers, expected honesty and clarity. Like headless chickens, we reached out for guidance and a route out, within the law. The Courts have not been easy nor consistent which makes a mockery of legal system - laws in place but not for keeping. The message is clear in local courts.

Many are afraid to reveal who we are as we look so foolish for trusting and being cheated, as if we were ALL stupid and green - we were not. Some of us did not question in the earlier stages, because it all seemed so wrong and beyond belief that developers could threaten us, despite THEIR delays, wrong doings and non fulfillment of obligations. We put our faith in honesty that turned to travesty.

If someone were to make a study of the lives wrecked and homes destroyed (my partner left me as I was so distressed; I also lost my child through depression - it would be interesting if statistics were collated, on adverse impact on ordinary people and developers who may have lost profit margins (haven't we all - it's a global depression?) on paper with smaller bank accounts.

As yet, no MP or MEP has come forward to help, give a voice to something that is effecting the lives, finances and pensions of hundreds of thousands. I know I am not alone but nor am I part of a group, as each person has different circumstances - and priorities - but we all suffer in silence, aged by the courts who dish out punishment to victims, instead of peace of mind.

mariadecastro said:
Thursday, September 25, 2014 @ 3:11 PM

Antifreeze:

When no Bank Guarantees were issued,actions against lawyers are also possible but, in general, civil indemnity actions are much more risky than these other actions against Banks based on an issued general Bank Guarantee or reception of amounts in a developers´account.

But, of course they are possible too.

antifreeze said:
Friday, September 26, 2014 @ 10:58 AM

This is from 2011 which is self explanatory but sadly, little has changed to alleviate problems for both buyers who have been cheated and the the Spanish economy which is in dead lock - all because courts, developers and perhaps other, collude to perpetuate the agony many now face:

British government intervenes to help expats caught in Spanish property scams

Last Updated: 5:03PM BST 12/04/2011
The UK government is currently dealing with more than a dozen different action groups made up of disenchanted expats who have lost hundreds of millions in property scams throughout Spain.

The situation is so severe that the government recently appointed a special overseas property advisor to help deal with it and to better understand the problems of those involved.

As a result, contentious issues such as illegal properties which do not have correct permits, cases where off-plan developments have not been built as specified and the length of time and cost involved in resolving property disputes were recently raised by the British ambassador to Spain with the Andalucian regional government and the Minister for Public Works and Housing.

A spokesman for the British Embassy in Spain said: "The UK government has no authority to interfere in any matters relating to Spanish domestic legislation, whether national, regional or local.

"However, we continue to express concern at the impact these problems are having on the lives of some of our citizens and Spain’s reputation abroad, and we have raised property issues with ministers in Spain and regional governments on numerous occasions.

"We understand the regional government is currently working with town halls in affected municipalities to draw up inventories of illegal properties and to seek solutions.

"We believe that the regularisation of these properties will come through updates and modifications to local town development plans."

One of the cases being studied by the special overseas advisor is that put forward by the Abusos Urbanisticos Lliber - NO! (AULN) action group, made up of expats who bought 298 family homes in the upmarket, inland village of Lliber on the Costa Blanca more than ten years ago.

The area has been blighted as a consequence of the arrangements made between former town hall officials and builders to build with building licences granted by the town hall but without authority from regional government.

Wholesale construction continued from 1999-2004, by which time an estimated £60 million was handed over to developers by unsuspecting expat families and retired couples.

One of the victims, who wishes to remain anonymous, said: "In 2004 the local environment agency, the college of architects and the guardia civil decided the homes were illegally built so building stopped.

"I took early retirement and with my wife, through an agency in Cheltenham, bought a three bedroom, three bathroom villa with swimming pool and views over the hills but we have no mains water, no electricity and we can't sell because it is illegally built. We are in limbo. The embassy has been great with advice but their hands are tied. The Spanish just don't want to know. It is a dirty, dirty business."

Thanks to the action group and its members' persistence, 2.4 million euros were recovered last year when police arrested the town hall architect and found the money in a private Andorran bank account.

A further 18 people are currently awaiting trial for corruption and fraud relating to the illegal building of homes in Lliber including the ex-mayor José Mas Avellá, British builder Trevor Bourne and agent Miguel Muntaner who had accumulated 100,000 sq of land in the Marina Alta as well as 16 houses and seven cars.

Only this week the Telegraph reported on the 300 Britons who lost an estimated £34 million after paying deposits on off-the-plan apartments in a proposed development called Estepona Beach and Country Club, 20 miles from Marbella.

In some cases, the prospective owners - many of whom were from Northern Ireland - put down an £85,000 deposit. However, the land still belonged to its original owner and the complex was never built.

As the overseas advisor continues to do her best to advise distraught expats and direct them to competent authorities and organisations which may be of assistance, the question has to be asked: why have scams been so prevalent in Spain?

Charles Svoboda, vice president of the Valencian action group Abusos Urbanisticos - No (AUN), who has been advising distraught British expats year after year, tole Telegraph Expat that it is simply because: "The laws are too lax and full of loopholes that tend to favour the scammers.

"There have been too many unscrupulous promoters, developers, estate agents, lawyers, notaries, town halls, etc involved in the process, whose main aim has been to make as much money as fast as possible.

"Their attitude has no concern about the lack of morality, let alone legality or corruption in all this. The sentiment that buyers are suckers who don't understand anything here and can't see past the beaches and bars when they buy is widespread.

"Some expats are naive enough to believe that things should work here as they do in the UK or northern Europe, when that is a pipe dream.

"And finally, the courts are slow and there are very few other recourses or ways to put things right here."

mariadecastro said:
Friday, September 26, 2014 @ 11:10 AM

Possibly, the issues of:
1) Treatment of mortgages on illegal properties
and

2) Illegal use of the European Enforcement Order

are now of high importance

antifreeze said:
Friday, September 26, 2014 @ 11:22 AM

Yes Maria - it has come to that stage in the process. The EEO are just arriving with cases that have been in the pipe line for almost 10 years.

Thanks.

ads said:
Friday, September 26, 2014 @ 12:38 PM

Dear Maria,

Doesn't this come down to recognising that there is a systemic breakdown and a threat to the rule of law in Spain, by
1) not adhering to the principal of legal certainty with regard to Ley 57/68 with full recognition of inalienable rights (to include legal BG's / LFO provision as per completion dates mutually agreed in the purchase contract etc)
2) non adherance to entitlement to effective judicial protection (where contra legem rulings cannot be appealed due to non admission for consideration to the Supreme Court )?
3) non adherence to timely justice that respects the due process of law

The European Commission can act on systemic breakdown of this nature according to safeguards to the rule of law, which would assist ALL those individuals seeking justice through the Spanish system of Justice. To follow this through in a piecemeal manner, each seeking individual recognition of European Directives will sadly only work for individuals and not the majority.

Is it not time to prove that a systemic breakdown has occurred which has significantly compromised so many innocent purchasers so far as to be deemed "a clear risk of a serious breach" with the aim of achieving a recommendation from the European Commission that the member state, Spain, solves the problems identified within a fixed time limit?

Otherwise so long as these abuses remain without time constraints in place, nor recognition of legal certainty or guarantees of judicial protection, each purchaser fighting for their rights will be left with an uncertain outcome (it will sadly remain a legal lottery).

antifreeze said:
Saturday, September 27, 2014 @ 12:47 PM

You have identified the problem Ads - it is very difficult to co-ordinate without a 'leading' agent/agency. Individuals are powerless to bring this to the forefront - it should not be necessary - Spain has laws. Judges do not have to adhere to law - they ignore EU directives. But the same freedom of information set out by the EU regulations, is being used to seize assets (EEOs)! BUT the same rules are NOT applied in courts, to deal with unscrupulous developers. They seem to escape with bogus contracts, breaches, misrepresentations. How is that a just system? It can only be wilful ignorance which is not a defense in ANY LAW in the EU!

This is a silent suffering which as long as people are fragmented, they will endure it alone and without force of numbers, they will be knocked back like flies. If they were to unite, the voice would be louder and courts, judges, developers alike, could not ignore them - that is something that Kieth Rule used in his fight.....where is the new Keith Rule or even the original, to lead this exposure?

You cannot say we will not apply this EU directive but we will use another one, to take you homes form you - because that is EU law! Corrupt use of law?

mariadecastro said:
Monday, September 29, 2014 @ 5:55 AM

Ads and Antifreeze:

I understand some of your considerations and agree on:
-Many contracts were fully biased for developers
-Many developers acted without respect to guarantees they had to provide to buyers
-Many Banks received amounts without performing the corresponding control that Law 57/68 required to them
-European Enforcement Orders for uncontested claims are being abusively used by Banks now.

But...

I do think these matters are being addresses and well covered ( in general) by Spanish Courts as long as they are brought to them by victims.

Kindest!

Maria

antifreeze said:
Monday, September 29, 2014 @ 12:25 PM

Thanks Maria

You are aware and act accordingly - you know there are laws which should govern outcomes. Sadly, it is the inconsistency of the legal system, described as a lottery - which is complex and perplexing for anyone buying in Spain - even with a lawyer conducting a purchase.

The real problem is, it is difficult to get justice although justice exists. Rules will always be broken - but to get different results for the same breach, is where the real problem lies in Spain. A blank EU ruling, applies but only if it is taken tot he highest courts - that is not how a legal system should work but has failed to uphold laws, mostly against foreigners - that in itself is a breach of Human Rights and Discrimination, which is a separate issue.

It is sad we have to bring cases to court for being bullied for the wrong doings of others, fighting them on their turf - why not bring the cases to the UK or Ireland? I wonder if they would bother then?

ads said:
Monday, September 29, 2014 @ 2:47 PM

Thank you Maria for giving us the opportunity to discuss and expose the issues that are of grave concern to many with regard to Ley 57/68.

A question remains with regard to non adherence to the principal of legal certainty when it comes to provision of LFO by the end date as defined and mutually agreed within the purchase contract (and as per Ley 57/68), and to expect purchasers to complete and be subjected to all the associated risks thereafter without legal requirement for mandatory provision of this essential document, or requirement for it to be made available in line with the mutually agreed end date as stipulated within a purchase contract is surely unacceptable is it not Maria?
Likewise for recognition of the BG to be kept in line with the mutually agreed end date as per the purchase contract, such that it can be enacted with legal certainty and not be subjected to retrospective actions that deny the purchaser of their inalienable rights.
Aren't these legal certainties part of inalienable rights as defined within Ley 57/68 that should be consistently recognised by the judiciary (and Supreme Court)?
What of the compromising inconsistent judicial rulings that fail to recognise Ley 57/68 in its entirety and this principal of legal certainty?
How are innocent purchasers ultimately protected against contra legem rulings if the SC are not willing to admit cases for consideration or be prepared to overrule enforcements that fail to recognise legal certainty or illegalities related to BG’s or timely provision of LFO?
What about the failure of effective recording mechanisms to report instances of contra legem rulings to monitor and act as regulatory control?
What about the excessive delays that impact the due process of law which for many who took action in the early days have affected enforcements and exposed them to extended litigation, only to be faced with inconsistent judicial rulings and/or worsening court and judicial delays that continue to impact the due process of law?
What about the legal loopholes with regard to land registry ?

There are all too many outstanding issues that currently leave the innocent purchaser at risk so surely these need to be addressed?

But these are the issues that sadly require exposure to external agencies such as the Fundamental Rights Agency and the European Ombudsman so long as failure to apply corrective measures or well overdue reforms that ensure adherence to the principal of legal certainty, consistency of judicial rulings, and timely justice etc remain in Spain.

But this needs to be done in an organised and credible manner (i.e. what better way than from those good legal representatives currently defending inalienable rights according to Ley 57/68 and/or a well respected advocate of rights associated with Ley 57/68 (Keith Rule). These uncomfortable truths have to be exposed if we are ever to gain effective and consistent legal protection with due regard to safeguarding ley 57/68 in its entirety and the rule of law in Spain.

Kind regards.

antifreeze said:
Monday, September 29, 2014 @ 3:08 PM

One assumes when you buy in Spain, you have regulations and protection of the law and BGs. This sadly has not been the case for so many buyers. We were told - BGs protect you for delays, non-completions etc. Instead, we, the buyers have been left at the mercy of the banks, developers, courts and the mis-use now, of EEOs when no laws were applied in the first instance, which existed to protect consumers here.

This will stall and cripple the industry that has made many wealthy in Spain - as the system is clogged with so many questionable cases that should be clear. As I said before, we need a Keith Rule to co-ordinate good practices - the truth is evident; it needs further exposure.

This blog Maria has been a vehicle for others to see what the issues are - good or bad, they are in the open. You cannot take honey without risks - the rewards are good - for buyers and Spain - if you play by the rules which sadly, many developers and some courts, have not adhered to.

mariadecastro said:
Tuesday, September 30, 2014 @ 8:40 AM

Thanks Antifreeze.
I am working on a report for the Chairman of the Committee on Petitions of the European Parliament, which has already asked the European Commission to conduct a preliminary investigation of the various aspects of the problem a client of us have.
We will work with Keith Rule on this to make it the more comprehensive we can.
We will keep you updated,
Maria

mariadecastro said:
Tuesday, September 30, 2014 @ 9:17 AM

ADS: I am answering your questions below

ADS-Thank you Maria for giving us the opportunity to discuss and expose the issues that are of grave concern to many with regard to Ley 57/68.

Maria- Thanks Ads, for your contributions and your questions too. I think that sites like EOS are a great tool for this discussions, which are always necessary and productive.

ADS- A question remains with regard to non adherence to the principal of legal certainty when it comes to provision of LFO by the end date as defined and mutually agreed within the purchase contract (and as per Ley 57/68), and to expect purchasers to complete and be subjected to all the associated risks thereafter without legal requirement for mandatory provision of this essential document, or requirement for it to be made available in line with the mutually agreed end date as stipulated within a purchase contract is surely unacceptable is it not Maria?

Maria- When interpreting Law 57/68 Supreme Court is taking into account the fact that many buyers were especulative investors which abandonned investments once they were not profitable.

This type of buyers are-- by definition--- not included in the scope of Law 57/68.

Of course if a buyer claimed their rights out of law 57/68 reasonably after the breach by developer, the full strength of Law 57/68 is working in its favour.

Supreme Court has already stablished the essential character of the breach which lack of Bank Guarantee implies, but this needs to be claimed at the beginning of the contract history, not once house is almost finished.

Supreme Court has also established the guarantee that depositing of moneys in a special account implies and Appeal Courts, almost unanimously are deciding against Banks which received deposits in a developer account and did not ensure on the existence of Bank Guarantees.

Supreme Court is about to issue a Court Decdission where it defines important concepts such as " cuenta especial" and the legal meaning of this"


ADS-Likewise for recognition of the BG to be kept in line with the mutually agreed end date as per the purchase contract, such that it can be enacted with legal certainty and not be subjected to retrospective actions that deny the purchaser of their inalienable rights.

ADS-Aren't these legal certainties part of inalienable rights as defined within Ley 57/68 that should be consistently recognised by the judiciary (and Supreme Court)?

Maria- They certainly are

ADS-What of the compromising inconsistent judicial rulings that fail to recognise Ley 57/68 in its entirety and this principal of legal certainty?

M- Supreme Court has the role to unify legal doctrine in Spain when different Appeal Courts pass different decissions on same matter.

ADS-How are innocent purchasers ultimately protected against contra legem rulings if the SC are not willing to admit cases for consideration or be prepared to overrule enforcements that fail to recognise legal certainty or illegalities related to BG’s or timely provision of LFO?

M-European Appeals needs to be studied for these cases

ADS-What about the failure of effective recording mechanisms to report instances of contra legem rulings to monitor and act as regulatory control?

M- The whole appeal system in Spain has that objective

ADS-What about the excessive delays that impact the due process of law which for many who took action in the early days have affected enforcements and exposed them to extended litigation, only to be faced with inconsistent judicial rulings and/or worsening court and judicial delays that continue to impact the due process of law?

Maria- Courts speed is being worked and bettered by the Government

Ads- What about the legal loopholes with regard to land registry ?

Maria- Something to be included, in my opinion, in a new Law on off plan deposits in Spain.

Ads-There are all too many outstanding issues that currently leave the innocent purchaser at risk so surely these need to be addressed?

Maria- Yes, I need that a reform of Law 57/68 is necessary.

Ads-But these are the issues that sadly require exposure to external agencies such as the Fundamental Rights Agency and the European Ombudsman so long as failure to apply corrective measures or well overdue reforms that ensure adherence to the principal of legal certainty, consistency of judicial rulings, and timely justice etc remain in Spain.

Maria-For one of our clients, we are preparing a report to the Petitions Committee of the European Parliament which is already investogating on this and have the Commission working with them on this.We will of course have Keith Rule with us on this.

Ads-But this needs to be done in an organised and credible manner (i.e. what better way than from those good legal representatives currently defending inalienable rights according to Ley 57/68 and/or a well respected advocate of rights associated with Ley 57/68 (Keith Rule). These uncomfortable truths have to be exposed if we are ever to gain effective and consistent legal protection with due regard to safeguarding ley 57/68 in its entirety and the rule of law in Spain.

Kind regards.

antifreeze said:
Tuesday, September 30, 2014 @ 9:43 AM

Maria. Thank you.

This has been one of the longest and most interesting posts on any blog about injustice in Spanish courts.

You have provided a platform which will be noticed by many - it cannot be ignored, in the hope it will go away - it will not! More people need to take action and bring this to the open. Fear prevents action! There is not point on jumping from a sinking ship, on to a life raft that will sink!
Perhaps if the 'world' informed, more will come forward and fight for rights and the change the whole attitude towards buying,investing and living in Spain. If someone had said to me 10 years ago, go and live in Algeria or Panama - I would have said NO - because I have no legal protection there - I NEVER thought that of Spain as it was the EU, with legal representation and protection of rights.

We would never have gone to Spain in Franco's time but the courts in Spain, exist in their own bubbles of such a past with laws applied randomly. Laws that as part of the EU, members states must respect and adhere to - you cannot sign to a club and then break the rules - you should be revoked in some way.

Interestingly, EU laws that have been IGNORED in order to punish and 'victimize' foreign consumers, but are being APPLIED to enforce EEOs! Spain cannot have it both ways.

I hope politicians, judges, lawyers and ordinary people will see the sense and prevail for what is correct.

We are grateful for this platform.

mariadecastro said:
Tuesday, September 30, 2014 @ 10:23 AM

Thanks Antifreeze

ads said:
Thursday, October 2, 2014 @ 2:31 PM



MARIA has quoted:
When interpreting Law 57/68 Supreme Court is taking into account the fact that many buyers were especulative investors which abandonned investments once they were not profitable.



ADS: Upon what premise do the SC base their assumption of buyers being speculative investors who abandoned investments once they were not profitable?
For the SC to make assumptions of this generalised nature, without taking into account ALL circumstances that led to denial of purchasers’ inalienable rights, as defined within existing law Ley 57/68 throughout this last decade of abuse, and to formulate a generalised conclusion in this manner, is highly questionable.
Moreover, this has sadly been a decade where many illegalities, widespread lack of due diligence and malpractice, administrative failures, failures of land registry controls, and systemic lack of strict Banking / financial controls to ensure Ley 57/68 was effectively enforced to protect innocent offplan purchasers, with due respect of their inalienable rights, has been compounded by an overstretched justice system that has struggled to adhere to the rule of law, to ensure consistent and timely justice (with due respect for legal certainty) for all those exposed and compromised by these “uncomfortable realities”.

Mention has been made of claiming rights “reasonably”, however this needs to be balanced by a requirement to study carefully the circumstances where developers/conveyancing lawyers/Banks have failed to meet their legal responsibilities, their duty of care, their “behaviour” and use of highly questionable methods employed to deny offplan purchasers of their inalienable rights, in order to“hide” their illegal manipulative ploys (some would suggest collusion), all with the intention of attempting to avoid the requirement to adhere to a good law Ley 57/68, in place from the outset to protect offplan purchasers from this form of abuse and ensure legal certainty prevails.
To then compound this by failures from within the justice system that further compromise the innocent purchaser, is where it has sadly fallen upon the European Commission to act as “fallback” to protect purchasers’ rights.

With this in mind it is essential that all the facts be laid bare and reviewed with an open mind, with a view to correct all the factors that have led to injustice on this scale (including administrative failures), to ensure that Ley 57/68 is sufficiently safeguarded so as to ensure legal certainty prevails, with rightful return of deposited monies and cancellation rights protected where applicable, but that conveyancing/legal/Banking failures are addressed and effectively regulated/reformed to prevent future occurrences of this nature.

With this in mind please consider the following, where the full strength of Law 57/68 has not been recognised by the judiciary:

Illegal BG’s
Ley 57/68 stipulates mandatory provision of BG, and if this has not been adhered to, it is impossible for the purchaser to make a claim at the beginning of contract history, moreover it only comes to light at the point of breach (when the suggestion is made that the developer/Bank did not provide a legal BG to protect purchasers deposited monies).
Illegal guarantees (for example those provided by an insurance company not recognised in Spain) would have been hidden from the purchaser.
Likewise for post dating of BG’s effective-from dates. This manipulative ploy on the part of all signatories to the Bank Guarantee, (developer/Bank/conveyancing lawyer) would have also been hidden from the purchaser in their attempt to gain an extension to a mutually agreed completion date as defined in the purchase contract, without gaining approval/agreement from the purchaser, nor annexing the BG to the purchase contract.
Again this would have only come to light at the point of breach when their rights to enact the BG would have been denied them.
This hidden illegal act also makes it impossible for the purchaser to make a claim at the beginning of contract history.
But, more worryingly, these manipulative ploys were further compounded in the early years, by major delays when requests for “evidence” were made. Only recently have these requests been made more readily available.

Insufficient delay.
The suggestion by the judiciary of “insufficient delay” when reference to end-dates in their legal arguments does not take into account the end dates as stipulated and mutually agreed in the purchase contract, nor of the fact that effective-from dates in the BG have to be “in line” with the purchase contract, nor of instances where purchaser approval has not been sought or given to any “hidden” extension nor annexed to the purchase contract (see the Note below), would be in contravention of legal certainty, given that Ley 57/68 stipulates the requirement for delivery of property by the mutually agreed end date as defined in the contract, with provision of LFO also required by the date stipulated and mutually agreed in the contract.
To ignore these facts denies the purchaser of their inalienable rights, which include cancellation rights with return of deposited monies.

The Supreme Court have subsequently declared that every delay leads to cancellation, but have placed time constraint provisos on applicability.
This “time proviso” effectively is a challenge to INALIENABLE rights, impinging on those who have been denied evidence or knowledge of their rights by those who had a duty of care to advise them accordingly.
But the question also remains as to how the European Union can ensure SC rulings that are finally recognising inalienable rights (such as the ruling every delay leads to cancellation) can be enforced for those who have had contra legem rulings that have ruled otherwise in the interim period.
Note: A European directive states “the consumer should be given an opportunity to examine all the terms of a contract and if in doubt the interpretation most favourable to the consumer should prevail”…. Also “ a contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer”.

Developer accounts.
In the instance where deposited monies have not been placed into developer accounts, purchasers have been placed at great risk through no fault of their own. Purchasers are not obliged to know where their deposited monies have been placed, since Ley 57/68 stipulates inalienable rights to protect their monies, with the onus being on “others” to ensure monies were placed into special accounts.
If this was not adhered to by those Banks taking offplan deposits, this should not be deemed the purchaser’s responsibility, nor should they be penalised by denying them of their inalienable rights for return of monies and rights for cancellation, if breach has occurred.
If illegalities or non adherence of any form have occurred in relation to this mandatory requirement, it should be for the Bank to take issue with those “parties”, not the innocent purchaser whose monies are protected by law.
Moreover it needs to be stressed that there is a mandatory obligation from the outset for deposited monies to be safeguarded by the Banks who acted as guarantors (with all the administrative procedures in place to ensure that monies were correctly safeguarded), which should be fully recognised by the judiciary when reviewing claims for return of all deposited monies against the developer/Bank/insurer who provided the BG, regardless of whether these monies went into “developer” accounts. These deposited monies have inalienable rights associated with them, which should be recognised without “provisios”.
Is this not correct?

Contra legem rulings
To deny purchasers the right for admission of their cases for consideration would be deemed contrary to the rule of law would it not (i.e. entitlement to effective judicial protection)? Current financial restrictions relating to applicability appear to deny cases to be admitted for consideration to the SC as things stand, which impacts their entitlement. Also it appears that SC directives are not a mandatory requirement for the judiciary to adhere to.
Is this correct?


Transference of property and land registry.
At present the off-plan buyer is not protected by the land registry until he actually completes on the property and this is one of the reasons why law 57/68 and its guarantees exist. You have identified that a preferential right should therefore be able to be registered at the Land Registry (presumably to protect against any developer being able to obtain additional finance (i.e. mortgage extension) for the property under contract to the offplan purchaser, as this would place the purchaser at future risk of being made accountable for hidden developer debt. But also, wouldn’t this protect against interim transfer of the property back to the Bank in the event of the developer defaulting for any reason, making the Bank legally obligated to inform the offplan purchaser of the transfer of property, which would entitle the purchaser to immediate cancellation rights and return of their monies at the point of transference to the Bank)?

This is one of the weak points of current offplan transmission which currently acts as a loophole in the conveyancing process that needs addressing.
But doesn’t this also act as an example of the importance of recognition and adherence to Ley 57/68 in its entirety by the judiciary, and recognition that provision of LFO in line with the mutually agreed date as stipulated in the purchase contract is an essential pre-requisite prior to completion, so that purchaser’s inalienable rights are protected at that point?

But on a wider note, for those who have been “allowed to” complete (or forced to complete for that matter) without provision of LFO, thus compromising their habitable rights, shouldn't there be a mandatory requirement for an LFO to be issued before any completion is allowed?
Do you agree?

The impact of court and judicial delays.
The following practicalities need to be considered when a purchaser first recognises that they are being denied the ability to enact their BG at the point of breach, which leads to inevitable delays that impact their ability to swiftly follow through a claim (this was most notably true in the early years).
1)The time required for the purchaser to research and comprehend the details associated with Ley 57/68 and request information from their current conveyancing lawyer.
2)The time required to gather the evidence together.
3) The time required to find a law firm willing and able to act as 2nd opinion (where they have been compromised by the first conveyancing lawyer) and the time required for that lawyer to research the case and ultimately agree to act on their behalf to defend purchaser’s inalienable rights.
4)The time required to cater for administrative processes such as POA to authorise and act on their behalf.
5)The time required to research and analyse the financial commitments to proceed with litigation.

To suggest that a purchaser was “not interested” in completion or “lacked commitment” to complete on a property in this interim period (as has been suggested by the judiciary), demonstrates a complete lack of appreciation, not only of the detail relating to breach of contract but also the breakdown of trust that results from recognition of illegal and manipulative ploys, and the extent that developer/conveyancing lawyer/Bank have gone to to try and counter a good law, in place to protect purchaser’s inalienable rights from the outset, and the impact on the innocent purchaser’s decision not to proceed to completion.

Neither should the stress be underestimated associated with subsequent litigation of this nature, that continues for years, due to delays beyond their control, or the subsequent ploys by developers/Banks who “play the system of delays” to their advantage, in the hope that this will be deter them from continuing litigation.
The time taken thereafter to gain preliminary hearing, first instance court ruling, preliminary enforcement, appeal ruling, SC ruling, and the impact of developers asset stripping or going into administration in the interim period, or conveyancing lawyers using delaying tactics to prevent swift provision of evidence, or suggesting that litigation against developer/Bank was not a viable option, or misleading clients in the process, or developers working in conjunction with conveyancing lawyers and Banks to try and deny their responsibilities, have all played a significant part in this sorry saga relating to significant delays, which must be taken into consideration by the judiciary and SC.

But then to find that the Supreme Court dismiss these uncomfortable realities and imply that purchasers should act “reasonably” or suggest that they were speculative investors, or deny them the right to have contra legem rulings reviewed in this fashion, or place retrospective time constraints that inhibit applicability to have inalienable rights respected, or suggest that previous cases where rulings have gone against innocent purchasers are not eligible for review as case law moves forward to recognise the ongoing failings of the system that should have been recognised in the first place, only adds to the distrust and grave concerns as to how Ley 57/68 can be effectively safeguarded in Spain.

Let’s hope that the European Union and the petitions committee recognise ALL these uncomfortable realities and ensure that inalienable rights associated with law LEY 57/68 WILL BE RESPECTED for those who have spent years striving for their rights to be recognised, and ironically striving for a decent system of justice that in the longer term will benefit all in Spain.

To repeat:
Is this now the time to prove that a systemic breakdown has occurred which has significantly compromised so many innocent purchasers so far as to be deemed "a clear risk of a serious breach" with the aim of achieving a recommendation from the European Commission that the member state, Spain, solves the problems identified within a fixed time limit?

Otherwise so long as these abuses remain without time constraints in place to ensure the due process of law, nor recognition of legal certainty, nor consistency of judicial rulings, or guarantees of judicial protection, each purchaser fighting for their rights will be left with an uncertain outcome (it will sadly remain a legal lottery).

Surely it’s now time for the European Commission to act.

Good luck Maria and Keith and I sincerely hope and trust that this has been of at least some use to enlighten the European Commission & Parliament and the Petitions Committee in readiness for your report!

Many thanks and kindest regards.














and thereby deny purchasers of their inalienable rights across the board by over-ruling the premise that all delays lead to cancellation or deny applicability of rights based upon retrospective time constraints, without providing an opportunity for a SC appeal to be admitted and thereby study ALL factors that purchasers have been subjected to, is highly questionable (i.e.illegalities & manipulative ploys relating to collusion between agent/developer/conveyancing lawyer/Bank in their attempts to deny purchasers’ of their inalienable rights). This will sadly only substantiate the claim by some that the SC and judiciary are unwilling to review “uncomfortable” realities that demonstrate corrupt malpractice within the real estate industry, with particular reference to offplan purchase and failure to adhere to Ley 57/68, with due recognition of ALL CIRCUMSTANCES that led to purchasers’ inalienable rights being denied them during this last decade of abuse.

ads said:
Thursday, October 2, 2014 @ 2:49 PM

Sorry Maria, that last paragraph was not intended to be sent, so could you please remove it if possible!

mariadecastro said:
Thursday, October 2, 2014 @ 3:00 PM

Ads:
I have just checked the EOS blog system. I could delete the whole comment but not just a paragraph.

Would you want me to delete the whole comment?

I promise answering your comment soon

Maria

antifreeze said:
Thursday, October 2, 2014 @ 3:07 PM

That was very interesting Ads - it is time to scrutinize the mal-practices that punished buyers - whether homes were bought to live in or for investment. The contracts and covert problems were not easy to solve as lawyers suddenly, were not available - those who worked with developers - the agent also fled and the courts, penalise the only people left holding the time bomb - those who put faith in a simply relying on BGs and lawyers - which seemed safe enough. How does a court define what is disinterest and what is difficult to unravel where contracts, loopholes and changes have been effected, without clarity? How many questions does any buyer here in the UK have to ask or should know about before they buy? They rely on solicitors, banks and agents to help them through a process - and experience. We were buying in Spain for the first time and took pre-cautions, reading the contracts with lawyers present and keeping the publicity docs to show to our families! if we were in court rooms, try to fight this injustice, how is that deemed as disinterest?

I would like a judge to buy in Scotland and understand the process, not speaking the language and to take the word of those around him/her to get through a purchase which could take years.....not that simple! I even got the lawyer to check the site to see what was laid down in buildings, before I paid the 2nd payment. It is an insult to think we just did not care - we were like headless chickens, wondering what to do.

We were all required to attend hearings - at the last minute, Corvera denied us our right to speak in court- again another game plan to try to destabilize us in a system where we are at the mercy of the courts, to be criminalized in Spain.

One wonders how many will read this.

ads said:
Thursday, October 2, 2014 @ 3:49 PM

Worry not Maria,
I will look forward to your responses.
Many thanks!

sandra said:
Thursday, October 2, 2014 @ 5:19 PM

Any UK citizen thinking of property purchase in Spain would, after reading Ads last response, drop the entire idea like a hot cake. Had we known of the porosity of the property purchase system she has highlighted,aligned with the ignorance (on our part), the inconsistencies of judges decisions(on the legal part) and the associated corruption we would not have considered Spain at all suitable. It would have in our view been tantamount to us buying in Liberia or Somalia and definitely too much of a gamble.
However we did and for almost ten years now it has blighted our lives allowing us to watch helplessly as our hard earned and saved £70K not only dwindle in value but also cost us additional £1Ks in legal costs in an attempt to recoup perhaps less than half of that amount.

antifreeze said:
Thursday, October 2, 2014 @ 5:42 PM

Sandra - many have lost their savings, homes and lives - in hindsight, we were too trusting and duped in to buying with bogus promises. Non of us was that stupid as we had savings and plans - we bought in Spain in good faith in EU protection legally speaking. If only more people would come forward as we are not unique in this sting.

We have spent thousands and all our savings too - only to be criminalized in Spain.

sandra said:
Thursday, October 2, 2014 @ 9:42 PM

antifreeze,
Many have fallen by the wayside in the years since purchasing during the property boom. For their wealth, health and sanity's sake they have abandoned all hope of seeing justice or the return of their money and put their loss down to experience hoping to forget the whole dirty business. In the early years many, for fear of being ridiculed and dismissed as a whinger, kept silent on these internet sites because deep down they were too embarrassed to reveal to the world that they had been ,in their own eyes, stupid enough to get robbed. But robbed they were, by the huge feeding frenzy of developers, agents, lawyers and, at the top of the chain, the banks. A massive swindle fuelled by greed and the availability of huge amounts foreign money. Ten years on , as we age, there cannot be many of us left with the stomach to fight for justice and the new time limits on claiming, introduced recently by the Spanish legal system, will sweep the remaining would-be claimants under the carpet.
Sadly, as Ads has effectively argued, very little has changed in the past decade to instil confidence in Spanish consumer protection in regard to property purchase and my fear is that the whole thing could happen again.

antifreeze said:
Thursday, October 2, 2014 @ 11:29 PM

We were robbed but in shock - wondering what suddenly, delays, lack of promised facilities etc, how it went so wrong? Justice now - courts saying 'buyers' were greedy to be sucked in to what was to be a profitable investment/purchase. When we completed, banks were ringing us up to offer us mortgages we could not, would not afford - so that they could get the money for the developers when we had lost our jobs, then foreclose and later sue us! Even bailiffs were hired to harass us to complete - CAM bank phoned at least once a week - it got to the point where we knew the girl and just said 'You are just doing your job...not your fault'....she agreed and apologised each time, for calling. Delays took us over the edge and although prices dropped, nothing in place to make Corvera at that time, viable for living or renting - half baked and no promised facilities - the world changed but they kept the pressure up and expected us to take out mortgages to hit their own profit targets - no consideration for not fulfilling the contractual obligations to the buyers. They scammed us and most of us, suffered as we looked so stupid to ever have fallen for a set up to rob ordinary sensible people with hype, clever marketing, the promises, polite PR - a SCAM with clever presentations.

Buying property or doing business in Spain, NO ONE should be trusted. They killed the goose that laid their golden eggs and now, with the help of their courts, rob us again, with distorted lies, contracts and unethical lawlessness in Spanish Courts.

It is all within the EU, why aren't the courts in the UK, permitted to fight these cases? The rights should still remain the same - perhaps with 100 cases, conducted in English, Spanish developers might get a taste of what it is like to be abroad, and deal with illegalities that should never have reached a court in the first place! There would be an outcry by Spanish banks and profiteers!

mariadecastro said:
Friday, October 3, 2014 @ 5:51 AM

Speculative investors and Supreme Court: It is not a generalised assumption but an awareness of many or at least some, were buying to sell.

Bank Guarantees: Banks receiving deposits are being punished when a Guarantoor did not exist, applying provision 1segundo of Law 57/68. But it is true that when a General Guarantoor existed, Banks receiving deposits are not liable but initially, that Bank or Insurance company which issued the General Guarantee if this is enforced. Lack of enforcement of this have different possible reasons and liable parties. In my opinion, if the buyer used a conveyance professional for the purchase, liability is on him.

Insufficient delay: I agree with you that provision 3 of Law 57/68 is not being applied correctly by many Courts, Appeal Courts and even Supreme Court. By nature, deadlines are essential in off plan purchases, becuase Law 57/68 defined them that way. By force of Law 57/68, extensions need to be expressed, written and closed--- with corresponding extensions of Guarantees.

Developers account: depending on each case´s facts, Bank itself, developer or conveyancing lawyers are liable when moneys were not deposited in a special account

ContraLegem rulings: Supreme Court appeals are by nature exceptional and restricted. Appeal Courts are obligued to apply what it is jurisprudencia ( 2 Court Decissions interpreting Law in same way)

Transference of property and Land Registry: Possibly the formula would be for the registrar to place an interim charge on the property till developer proves that the corresponding guarantees have been delivered to the buyer.

LFO and completion: It has not been till very recent ( 2011-2013) that Law has required Notaries to check on licenses and not to authorise transmissions plus Registrars not to register them.

The impact of Court and judicial delays: I agree with you. Enforcement of a title of Guarantee by an individual purchaser should not take more than 3 weeks in an out of Court request to the Bank.

Ads: Would you help me and Keith to word our appraisal for the case we are issuing a report to the European Commission. All the points above can be included.

antifreeze said:
Friday, October 3, 2014 @ 9:14 AM

Maria and all others reading these blogs - this would be a first! The EU commission with others, people who have been trapped by Spanish developments and law, to support this initiative to seek justice.

Ads - your observations and points have been so aptly expressed - which is why we read them. Diligence and perseverance to bring this to light and justice.

Maria and Keith Rule - I know, your articles and comments too are well regarded and respected with all those who are waiting to see the outcomes or fighting on. I am no lawyer but even i understand what has been distorted in law!

OTHERS READING THESE COMMENTS - how can we offer support to such an action to bring about awareness and justice? Many of us have sat like frightened rabbits, unable to act or move - not knowing which risk to take next - perhaps safer to sit and wait because there is no regularity in courts - a legal lottery!

No protection against fraudulent agreements and mis-sold developments with no guarantees, delays completion or finished sites! We WERE in the EU - not in some lawless out back.

mariadecastro said:
Saturday, October 4, 2014 @ 7:04 AM

Ahead!

ads said:
Monday, October 6, 2014 @ 11:21 AM

I will help where I can, Maria & Keith, but I have urgent outstanding queries with regard to non- respect of Ley 57/68 and General Guarantors and would be very grateful for your observations.

This posting relates to those who should be ultimately responsible for any further litigation following developer breach…..

You mention “Bank Guarantees: Banks receiving deposits are being punished when a Guarantoor did not exist, applying provision 1segundo of Law 57/68. But it is true that when a General Guarantoor existed, Banks receiving deposits are not liable but initially, that Bank or Insurance company which issued the General Guarantee if this is enforced. Lack of enforcement of this have different possible reasons and liable parties. In my opinion, if the buyer used a conveyance professional for the purchase, liability is on him. “

General Guarantors are presumably by definition those who agree to act as Guarantor (according to Ley 57/68) to the whole scheme from the outset, are they not? The responsibility of guarantor therefore is to have in place all necessary procedures to ensure purchasers’ rights (inalienable rights) are protected at all times. Is this not the case?

Are they not the ones who had OVERALL RESPOSNSIBILITY to ensure that strict controls were adhered to, such that all necessary administrative procedures were in place from the outset to ensure that “all parties” subsequently involved in these processes made correct provision of SECURE Bank accounts, together with correct provision of LEGAL Bank Guarantees (required to be in line with individual purchase contract end dates) via NOMINATED AND IDENTIFIABLE BANK ACCOUNTS, thus correctly adhering to Ley 57/68?

Without these strict administrative procedures in place and requirement to take full responsibility as acting General Guarantor, they would be in contravention of Ley 57/68 would they not, as the inevitable consequence would be to place offplan purchasers at grave risk?

To suggest that in the event of developer breach that the Guarantor does not take immediate responsibility for SWIFTLY administering the return of monies to purchasers from those “other parties” who should have been fully compliant with their procedures from the outset, in place to enact the processes required thereafter, makes a mockery of their responsibility as Guarantor and their responsibilities according to Ley 57/68, and I repeat, places the purchaser at grave risk in the process.

Purchasers should not be at risk AT ALL, nor should they ever be made responsible to take action against those “other parties” when the General Guarantor is ultimately responsible, given the fact that Ley 57/68 had been devised from the outset for the sole purpose of ELIMINATING purchaser risk, so as to provide security for their investment up to the point of delivery of the property (with required licences in place to indicate the property was habitable, fit for purpose etc.).

Indeed, great emphasis was made during this last decade of how Bank Guarantees were in place in Spain to FULLY PROTECT purchasers’ offplan deposited monies and provide them with inalienable rights for SWIFT return of those monies in the event of developer breach.

I have to stress, inalienable rights, swift return.

This is the legal certainty that was expected from ley 57/68 and that purchasers (although not knowledgeable of the intricacies of this law) were given all the necessary reassurances in principal for them to continue with offplan purchase contract. Without these legal inalienable reassurances, offplan purchasers would never have proceeded with purchase. The risks would have been too great.

Keith has stressed in his BG petition, “any purchaser in possession of a BG where the developer has clearly defaulted on the contract is able to execute the BG in accordance with Ley 57/68 WITHOUT THE NEED FOR LENGTHY LITIGATION AND COURT DELAYS”.
Why therefore should the General Guarantor not be made to comply with this requirement?

It appears to me that General Guarantors are now presumably denying their responsibilities, with the knock-on effect of placing the burden of litigation on innocent purchasers to take action against “other parties” culpable for failing to administer what was their responsibility from the outset, namely to put in place strict procedures and administrative processes to ensure purchasers’ were provided with legal BG’s and inalienable rights fully respected with swift return of monies in the event of developer breach. The responsibility for any further litigation should fall solely on the General Guarantor and to suggest otherwise makes a complete mockery of a law in place to protect innocent purchasers.

It is an anathema on all that was intended via Ley 57/68 to protect offplan purchaser rights, and sadly acts as a prime example of non-adherence to safeguarding the rule of law in Spain and the principal of legal certainty.

Maria, you quote “In my opinion, if the buyer used a conveyance professional for the purchase, liability is on him “….
This is agreed but where I personally strongly disagree, is who should be responsible for making the General Guarantor liable.

Purchasers should never be made responsible to litigate against any illegalities committed under the watch of General Guarantors and there should be no discrimination between individual guarantors and general guarantors. Both are ultimately responsible to adhere to the principals of Ley 57/68 are they not?

To imply otherwise gives credence to the inevitable consequence of placing further financial burden (and stress) and major compromising delays (YEARS as opposed to weeks!) for return of their deposited monies on innocent offplan purchasers, when the purchaser has no legal responsibility for failures relating to these compromising administrative events. The burden of litigation, if required, should fall on the General Guarantor, not the innocent purchaser.

ads said:
Monday, October 6, 2014 @ 11:35 AM

The inference here is for the General Guarantor to be the one responsible to litigate against "other parties", where applicable, and not the innocent offplan purchaser.

ads said:
Monday, October 6, 2014 @ 1:08 PM

Maria,

To further clarify, you quote in relation to illegalities, “In my opinion, if the buyer used a conveyance professional for the purchase, liability is on him “…. This is agreed (but the responsibility for this should not fall upon innocent purchasers when the General Guarantor has an obligation to ensure all procedures were in place to eradicate the opportunity for illegalities to occur in the first place).

Keith quite rightly quotes in his BG petition http://www.bankguaranteesinspain.com/truth.htm “The Bank & Savings Banks were the “vehicle” through which the illegal activity operated. The Banks & Savings Banks who were funding the developers were happy to use purchasers’ unsecured deposit funds to lessen the Banks exposure to the various developments”.

IMHO the purchaser at present is being denied their inalienable rights for swift return of monies in the event of developer breach, if the General Guarantor is not recognised as the overall party responsible to ensure swift return of monies.

Thereafter it should be for them to reclaim monies from those who subsequently placed them into “other” Banks and did not adhere to provision of easily identifiable secure accounts.

Why should the General Guarantor not be made responsible to adhere to Ley 57/68 with all due procedures defined and in place so as to subsequently make provision of legal BG / secure account and ultimately return of deposited monies when required?

To suggest otherwise fails to take account of the fact that these General Guarantors will have in effect allowed Banks to be the vehicle through which illegal activity operated.
Do you agree Maria & Keith?

mariadecastro said:
Monday, October 6, 2014 @ 4:45 PM

Yes Ads. General Guatantoors were the institution ( financial or insurance) that agreed with developer to protect off plan deposits. There is no legal obligation on them by Law 57/68 as they are for develoepers( provide the guarantee to buyer) and for depositing banks ( verify the guarantees existed). Obligations of these guarantoors are before the other contract party ( developer). They would be breaching their obligations if requested individual certificates of Guarantees by developer/or buyer, they had not provided it to them.

I agree with you that whatever the point where the system failed, buyer is never liable ( except for paying off plan agreed amounts)

When a General Bank Guarantee exist, the right procedure is to request it from this Guarantoor or make him liable of the deposits. We won today a case using that strategy

mariadecastro said:
Wednesday, October 22, 2014 @ 11:05 AM

Ads:

Supreme Court decission by which delayed play for cancellation rights was questionable is refering to a case where the buyer was finally called to complete by the developer and did not attend, did not oppose cancellation then. So, it is still deffendable that if the buyer never acted for cancellation but was never called to complete either, can act for refund against developer/Bank now.

ads said:
Wednesday, October 22, 2014 @ 3:07 PM

Thank you Maria for the clarification.

I have several observations however.

What about those innocent purchasers who through no fault of their own were not correctly informed of their rights associated with Ley 57/68 when called to complete (those where conveyancing lawyers were not independent of developers and were not working in client's best interests), and/or those who have delayed acting in the interim period, fearful that there was insufficient case law in place to protect them, whilst also recognising the major compromising court and judicial delays that were working in developer/Banks favour, or the proliferation of developer/Bank appeals that had no time contraints in place (still!!) to act as control/disincentive to abuse the system of justice by "playing" the system of delays to their advantage?

Or for that matter those who have witnessed contra legem appeal rulings in favour of the developer/Bank and have been understandably awaiting greater refinement (support) from the Supreme Court to rightfully protect them from inconsistent rulings appertaining to Ley 57/68?

Once again we have been left with a generalised inference that purchasers who have failed to act in this interim period want to "forget about their investment", which for all to many is far from the truth and does a grave disservice to the innocent purchaser who might well have been understandably fearful to act given all of the above (and more) until such time as Ley 57/68 is fully and consistently recognised and enforced by the judiciary in Spain.

I have to ask the question is this now an attempt to place retrospective provisos on the enforcement of rights afforded by Ley 57/68, without due consideration of all the compromising realities that have acted as major disincentive to proceed with litigation at this moment in time, given all of the above? Is this an attempt to limit the effectiveness of Ley 57/68 and thereby not make developers/Banks truly accountable for their failures during this last decade?

To place provisos of any form which subsequently deny purchasers of their rights until such time as they can feel confident in their legal arguments, without fear of inconsistent rulings, or fear that they will be denied the opportunity to have any contra legem rulings fairly reviewed, without fear of undue favour towards developers/Banks, without fear of major compromising delays, appears to remain in denial of some uncomfortable realities.

IMHO the current legal lottery with inconsistent rulings, denial of timely justice and any retrospective attempts to limit the effectiveness and recognition of purchasers’ inalienable rights in this way, appears to point to a systemic failure to safeguard the rule of law in Spain, and should not remain hidden from view.

Hence there becomes a growing need (sadly) to look towards an outside body/mechanism to demand consistent respect of existing law, in place to fully protect offplan purchasers’ monies from the outset, with rightful return of those monies, following breach.

mariadecastro said:
Thursday, October 23, 2014 @ 1:06 PM

Dear Ads:

I am answering questions to you below:

Thank you Maria for the clarification.

I have several observations however.


Q-What about those innocent purchasers who through no fault of their own were not correctly informed of their rights associated with Ley 57/68 when called to complete (those where conveyancing lawyers were not independent of developers and were not working in client's best interests), and/or those who have delayed acting in the interim period, fearful that there was insufficient case law in place to protect them, whilst also recognising the major compromising court and judicial delays that were working in developer/Banks favour, or the proliferation of developer/Bank appeals that had no time contraints in place (still!!) to act as control/disincentive to abuse the system of justice by "playing" the system of delays to their advantage?

A- Every case is different. As said, if those clients in wait, were never called to complete, then they can act against Bank/developer

If they were called to complete and were wrongly advised on way ahead, they can sue their lawyers

Q-Or for that matter those who have witnessed contra legem appeal rulings in favour of the developer/Bank and have been understandably awaiting greater refinement (support) from the Supreme Court to rightfully protect them from inconsistent rulings appertaining to Ley 57/68?

A- Supreme Court refusals to admission. Difficult.

Q-Once again we have been left with a generalised inference that purchasers who have failed to act in this interim period want to "forget about their investment", which for all to many is far from the truth and does a grave disservice to the innocent purchaser who might well have been understandably fearful to act given all of the above (and more) until such time as Ley 57/68 is fully and consistently recognised and enforced by the judiciary in Spain.

A- If they exposed reasons to oppose completion when they were called, they can act for refund. If they were never called, they can act for refund. Ony weak situation is if they were called to complete and did not formulate their reasons for not completing then.

Q-I have to ask the question is this now an attempt to place retrospective provisos on the enforcement of rights afforded by Ley 57/68, without due consideration of all the compromising realities that have acted as major disincentive to proceed with litigation at this moment in time, given all of the above? Is this an attempt to limit the effectiveness of Ley 57/68 and thereby not make developers/Banks truly accountable for their failures during this last decade?

A- I think it is not. But can understand your fears and you do a great job at scrutinizing legal coverage

To place provisos of any form which subsequently deny purchasers of their rights until such time as they can feel confident in their legal arguments, without fear of inconsistent rulings, or fear that they will be denied the opportunity to have any contra legem rulings fairly reviewed, without fear of undue favour towards developers/Banks, without fear of major compromising delays, appears to remain in denial of some uncomfortable realities.

IMHO the current legal lottery with inconsistent rulings, denial of timely justice and any retrospective attempts to limit the effectiveness and recognition of purchasers’ inalienable rights in this way, appears to point to a systemic failure to safeguard the rule of law in Spain, and should not remain hidden from view.

Hence there becomes a growing need (sadly) to look towards an outside body/mechanism to demand consistent respect of existing law, in place to fully protect offplan purchasers’ monies from the outset, with rightful return of those monies, following breach.

A- I am aware that the European Commission is reviewing some laws and procedures in Spain

antifreeze said:
Thursday, October 23, 2014 @ 7:44 PM

In UK - when you buy off plan, you have to show your income to met the mortgage requirement - and have that in place BEFORE you can progress to exchange (signing of contract) You pay 10% at this point. IF YOU DO NOT COMPLETE - you lose your deposit, 10%. If there is a breach of contract on part of the developer, including delays, the contract can be cancelled or the developer has to pay the buyer, deposit refund and interest at per agreed contract.

Any changes, are administered and checked by the lawyers acting for both sides. One could not have such a mess as in Spain as laws are there, if laws were applied and not by-passed or ignored. There needs to be more regulation but at the time of boom economy, fast deals made, no thinking about what if it all goes wrong.

mariadecastro said:
Friday, October 24, 2014 @ 6:22 AM

Fully agree with you Antifreeze. Good, independent work by conveyancing lawyers then, would have stopped many disasters.

ads said:
Friday, October 24, 2014 @ 10:07 AM

Dear Maria,
If there needs to be adherence to anything it should be adherence to the rule of law.

Adherence to the principal of legal certainty (full adherence to EXISTING LAW Ley 57/68 with all articles recognised and adhered to, including provision of LFO at point of delivery), adherence to the principal of legal protection (adequate protection from inconsistent appeal rulings/contra legem rulings), adherence to the rule of equality before the law (no undue favour to developers/Banks), adherence to the process of law to ensure timely justice and enforcement of existing law is recognised. In other words safeguarding the rule of law would have stopped (and still will) prevent many disasters.

To pass on the problem of failures in this regard to innocent purchasers to defend against an ever expanding myriad of conditions (against developer/Bank/lawyer/local councils etc), in order to counter administrative failures, lack of controls by professional bodies (supervisory Banking controls as identified by Keith Rule in his BG petition text, with law societies/Bar associations included in this scenario), lack of monitoring and adequate control re major court delays and delays to judicial rulings without provision of time constraints that have led to compromising legal complexities, failure to ensure consistent adherence to an existing law by the judiciary without legal protection in place to protect against contra legem rulings, ignores the requirement to safeguard the rule of law in Spain.

Legal certainty and consistent and timely adherence to Ley 57/68 in its entirety lies at the heart of this problem and all instances of breach and non compliance of procedural and financial controls required to respect and protect purchasers inalienable rights as defined therein should be fully recognised and the law complied with.
All circumstances that have compromised adherence to this law (no LFO at point of delivery, illegal BG, non provision of BG, extensions/alteration to BG’s without informing or seeking purchasers agreement or annexing to contract, non compliance with marketing literature, non provision and adequate control of secure Bank accounts for offplan deposited monies, etc , should all be recognised and consistently ruled against and purchasers inalienable rights fully recognised and complied with.
It’s so frustrating to have to keep repeating the same arguments over and over again and be met with a call for further legal action(s) when an existing law with inalienable rights in place should be fully recognised and complied with!

mariadecastro said:
Friday, October 24, 2014 @ 10:45 AM

Ads:
Fully agree with you
Keith Rule´s petition is complete and a road to follow, in my opinion
María

mariadecastro said:
Friday, October 24, 2014 @ 11:15 AM

Ads:

Let me express something:

I sympathise with you. How I wish things were like you are describing! It is what we have and keep fighting about since 2006!

ads said:
Friday, October 24, 2014 @ 12:07 PM

Thank you Maria. I do understand.
We all have to stay strong, educate, confer, research, debate, but at the end of the day after a full decade, when all of this leads to recognition that self correction from within is proving, shall we say, extremely difficult (understatement!!), then this is surely the time to seek the most effective way forward, which is to follow Keith's remarkably astute and educative petition, and bring this to the attention of those at the HIGHEST LEVEL (the most effective level available. A top down approach given the grave nature of failure to adhere to the rule of law.)

But hopefully supported and accredited by good law firms such as your own. Credence to this effect has to come not only from innocent purchasers but also those who have been fighting for recognition of inalienable rights for their clients according to existing law from the moment Keith analysed the complex detail and acted (thankfully) as the dog with a bone!

Thank you Maria and Keith, sincerely, for all your ongoing endeavours.

mariadecastro said:
Friday, October 24, 2014 @ 12:11 PM

Thanks Ads.
Have a beautiful weekend!
María

antifreeze said:
Friday, October 24, 2014 @ 1:16 PM

When you set out to buy in a foreign place, you may base your judgement on trust, established reputation and marketing by agent/developer. AND LAWYERS. Most developments were not small - they were large companies/organisations who 'appeared' to be bone-fide for purchase. They sold off plan, took money and made money - 30% instant deposits in most cases....and only delivered part of the deals they were publicising to attract their buyers - who became unhappy, uncertain about how to proceed next.
Extending of contracts disguised as gift options, were illegal - developers knew what they were doing...part of their plan? Extended contracts - NOTHING came via lawyers who were not working for their clients - they too had made their cash and fighting their developer partners, would not do much for future business partnerships.

Here is the problem - no one predicted the impact of the over pricing hype - no one purchased to lose money. All buyers purchased to make a profit as that is what we were ALL told by developers and agents - with BGs, banks offering 100% mortgages - and that way, you could have the deposit back if it went wrong. Banks were offering this at the point of sale agreement.

Who sold this 'investment' guaranteed, to buyers?
DEVELOPERS, AGENTS and BANKS. They made their money and now, the SC is saying we were investors and deserve more punishment? HOW or WHEN did the contract stipulate that it would be different if you bought 1 property from if you purchased more? NO ONE said, do not buy more than one or the courts will treat you differently! Surely, sell more than one unit, was a win win for all! No one said - wait, check the affordability, do the figures and get bank approval for financial arrangements .

EVERYONE was rushed through to buy and make 'quick' decisions. WHY? Prices went up by the week.....same building cost, same delays, same location etc...but price differences were incredible - who made the profits from all the jacked up prices?

Sorry Maria, but the developers and banks all took their cut, all as if they never had any intention of actually completing the developments as publicised as no licences were in place at time of agreed sales and deposits, in the case of Corvera, no hotel agreement with DE VERE - that was NEVER going to be on their development - but they took the money upfront at the time, as if it was all going to be in place, selling the lifestyle to envy and invest in. BUT they had they set out to deliberately mislead buyers? They took money, with contingencies for problems that they knew would arise.....did they think people would not notice the lack of 5* hotel and luxury finish?

CONTRACTS - they were with lawyers known to developers and not pro-buyer - no law was cited to protect innocent people! No lawyers said - 'FYI, your build is out of time and you can enforce Ley...' NO developer informed buyers that they could, within their legal rights, have their deposit refunded. No banks contacted (me) to say, you cannot afford the mortgage so the completion cannot happen. Keith Rule had to find that law!

DELAYS - for almost 2 years, very few people knew what to do. LAWYERS did not know what to do - as proven by some groups who paid into schemes to get help, only to be let down by lawyers who created a secondary business from the misery of foreign buyers, without doing anything - walking with money! Another quick profit for a few legal sharks - perhaps we did not just avoid or forget, but were let down again - so who do you go to, or trust, next?

Are the courts seriously saying - people abandoned their money because they could afford to just walk away form haad earned money that has been taxed, to burn it in Spain?

Here are the choices buyers had : -
1. Complete and hand the keys back on a half finished development with no golf course (at the time, no facilities in place - just empty promises) Properties not rent worthy as PROMISED. Many regret this now as they have lost so much more.....will the developers be forced to compensate them?..... BIG FAT NO! How do the courts view their loss of investment or home value? ZERO concern I am sure....let them suffer?

2. Find a lawyer who knew what to do - and you could trust to question the contract/facilities etc - not easy - some lost money on this action.

3. Try to get your deposit refund based on BGs which were not correctly administerd - find a lawyer first...and untie the mess.

4. Sit and wait to see what other buyers are doing

5. Find a trusty lawyer who might understand and unravel the knots developers created to safe guard themselves and threats to buyers - and more money to pay.

6. Fear that developers disappear.go bust - some had GOOD times and sold out or just shut down! INVESTORS/BUYERS did NOT make profits - money siphoned off already - so loss of deposits and no BGs availed to buyers.


7. Raise more money in UK to try to complete with lowered mortgages in Spain - no 100% mortgages and banks overvaluing to lend the money to clear their own debts with buyers paying for 'investments' in negative equity...developers did not adjust or negotiate?

8. Enter in to legal action with disadvantages of not knowing/understanding fully, the purchasing and contractual obligations entered in to, lack of information and files (withheld or lost when requested?) Did the developers hold our files too, with shared lawyers? One suspects as they worked together, it maybe so, as lawyers just vanished!

9. Developers set out to make a fast buck, they did that and blamed others/bad press against buyers - for incomplete developments - what about THEIR promises and unfair contracts?

10. I seriously DO NOT believe that anyone dealing with property as a lawyer or developer - did not know about Ley 57/68. More like they tried to skirt around it and avoid it. If Keith could dig up this rule, it was always there and created for the same scenarios, to avoid problems with off plans in the 60's. It is basic fundamental - like BGs - both there, both difficult to enforce - WHY?

11. Consumer protection was there in theory but buyers have to fight to prove they have any protection - fighting lawyers, banks and the legal system - not easy so therefore = no rights.

12. If courts think investors who bought more than one, were going to make a fast buck - impossible until ALL facilities were in situ on developments - in the case of Corvera, they did not even have a branding which they were marketing as the lure to get people to buy more and more! Why did they encourage quick deals?

As with many developers, they put their prices up and up each month and took the money - some had NO INTENTION to complete any such development! They had taken the money and run.....so for this, the buyers must be punished?

I wonder after this mess, who will by in Spain? Who will bring money into the economy? Who will a buyer trust - as it as lawless in the property deals.

The system needs to clean up it's act and who is forcing this, the people who lost their money, not the lawyers, developers and banks. If I had bought in Somalia, I might expect to be robbed - big risk factor! In Spain, the EU - you expect protection by consumer laws - which are not applied by courts. Why have law?

Investors did not break the law, nor did people who were/are in shock. People who were in their retiring years - did they want to start a fight or retire in comfort? 10 years on, most have got too tired, stressed or ill, by laws that are unclear, not applied or if they are, to the benefit of the big guys and local judges, making incredible decisions - that are beyond the law!

And Courts say we abandoned our savings? What hope is there with that attitude by ill informed judges who are clearly biased?

Developers did not lose money - they just had less profit....they knew what they were doing form the start - quick profit and get out before finishing, THAT WAY, no need to spend on bogus promises.

So far, the system does not know what to do and makes random decisions and rulings.

ads said:
Friday, October 24, 2014 @ 10:14 PM

The lack of justice and moral authority by all those who have the power to recognise these compromising realities and enforce Ley57/68 in its entirety (in place to protect purchasers inalienable rights from the outset), only goes to prove how important it is to fight for safeguards to the rule of law.
The principle of legal certainty and timely enforcement is a basic requirement to any civilised system of justice, and to place important principles at risk in this manner begs so many questions of those in positions of authority in Spain.
Let's hope that those now empowered with prioritorising these fundamental principles to the rule of law in the European Union will recognise that failure to act will only further hinder their objectives " to build a sound and predictable justice system, a pre requisite for economic growth and business friendly environment".
The new EU Justice Commissioner Vera Jourova speaks of her intention "to be the voice of people's interests" and Jean Claude Junker (Commission President) identified in his mission statement of the need for the EU "to consistently respect and uphold the rule of law."
Well let's see how they respond to Keith Rule's educative BG petition (with support from respected law firms?) and hold them to their word.

antifreeze said:
Saturday, October 25, 2014 @ 12:24 AM

DEVELOPERS - They must have had a business plan with time frames to roll out their projects with their financial backers. At some stage they knew it was all going off the rails - late starts, no licences but happy to sell sell sell, taking money up front to start building, almost 2 years after signing contracts - surely all developers knew of problems on the horizon - no licence in place and still taking money from buyers. Or were they so stupid at running a business without contingencies? They relied on foreign buyers who would not be on site to check the progress. Did the courts, 6 years ago, expect people to turn up in Spain and do what? Go where? Leave their homes and work to see if projects were on track? I sent my lawyer who reported NIL progress but 2nd payment had to be made! We still do not have truth from banks and developers....why would they tell us 6 years ago?

At what point did the developers know they were off piste but continued to take money from potential buyers at inflated prices with promises which were never to be fulfilled? Who was in default there? Have courts looked in to that?

Why did developers, lawyers and banks, inform buyers that they would not be finishing their projects as publicised 6 years ago? One judge thought it was acceptable to wait for 100 years for a hotel to be built....then I say, let them wait 100 years for the completions too!!! Based on that, not a good investment for anyone - even if you had 10 villas - worthless. Should my money be refunded as I thought my investment would be sooner than 100 years?

SLOW ACTING BUYERS - when did buyers find out it was all going wrong? We tried to work it out by scratching around, talking, asking unknowns, reading reports - NO ONE knew what was going on, EXCEPT those in control, who took the money and failed to deliver the goods as promised. Everything that was wrong, was hidden then and still hidden.

Even now, lawyers are still trying to work out issues - as so much smoke blown in our faces to prevent and conceal information. It has taken years. Did courts really expect foreign buyers to know what to do at the time? Impossible as there was lack of information and no legal process to follow then and years later, still uncertainty. Developers too waited for the courts to make decisions to set the tone.

There is an ethical duty to keep buyers informed about progress - but keep it quiet if you have something to hide.

Foreign purchasers, had no information. When your lawyer and agents disappear and the developers threatens you with bailiffs in the UK, who is acting immorally and beyond the law? They waited to see what would happen. Perhaps, they should have updated with real reports and options for breach and delays. Developers were the BIG INVESTORS with speculative deals making the real money. They took a risk and some lost out - but why do the courts think buyers should not invest? No one buys to make a loss - basic principle of purchasing!

When we bought in Spain, we did not see it as a risk - only revealed recently. Some will fight but many are tired and getting older - and feel they have lost everything to a lawless system which needs to be updated if there is ever any hope of civil justice.

I applaud those who have the bravery to stand up to fight for the little people who have been left powerless and exhausted by irregular systems. Thank you Ads for your insight which is always clear and open.

mariadecastro said:
Monday, October 27, 2014 @ 10:16 AM

Ads:
I do not know if Keith get to send the petition to the European organ for petitions. We have one client whose case is being analysed by them now
Cheers
Maria

ads said:
Monday, October 27, 2014 @ 4:44 PM

So it has been submitted to the British Government and Spanish Government and not the European Parliament? What plans are there now to include this important educative petition to the EU Parliament?

mariadecastro said:
Tuesday, October 28, 2014 @ 2:30 PM

You need to talk with Keith on that. I have helped him oin his effort but, all the merit is his.