El blog de Maria

goodstich44 said:
Tuesday, September 27, 2011 @ 9:54 AM

Hi Maria

going on the basis that an asset of some sort is better than nothing and assuming the banks have far more assets than money?, then I can see a possability. I see several problems though. I wonder what happens to that asset if the new owner can't or has no intention now of keeping the property for any number of reasons?. They just want or need their money back. Will they then be able to sell it?. Also, if say someone has lost 40,000 euro's, how does that equate to a property?. Would the banks agree to half a property if they value the property at 80,000 euro's?. Where does that leave the buyer? In my case the courts awarded me £83,00 euro's, which I am still owed by the courts thanks to their delay......or is the bank who didn't give me a BG who owe me the money? If the cases go to appeal after appeal because the body in question or a true property value can't be decided on, who pays for that?. The only way I can see this working is if a law was passed that gave a victim of no BG or unreasonable court delay the advantage, so that it wouldn't be worth a bank (or the courts in my case) taking the case to court or appeal?.

Rambi said:
Tuesday, September 27, 2011 @ 1:04 PM

Goodstitch has raised some very valid points. I can't see the banks being over generous or even very apologetic.The banks will still expect to see a 'pound of flesh' somewhere in the deal and it won't be theirs.
I don't think I could ever trust the Spanish banks again even if Juan Carlos himself signed the documents.