el valle murcia

Hampos is spot on in listing issues all over the site that are badly finished. While individual contracts cover our properties there must be standards for these types of site issues enforceable by yhe Planning authority or by the community acting as a group. I have no objection to making a contributing towards beautifying the grounds but believe that we should be able to instruct Ammex or a replacement to pursue the developer to require proper completion of siteworks. It would be worthwhile to make provision in our budgets for engagement of an architect and possibly legal advice to help get enforcement of Planning conditions and Standards od workmanship. We could all feed in defects from our areas - eg leaks in garage and the door not working in Bl 14-16

I'm all for that I agree with jerry  lets start pushing this lot it will come good in the end.

Absolutely right - common sense at is best. If I am ever an owner I will be delighted to support this initiative.

We have an English translation of the purchase contract and the penultimate paragraph ("eleventh") states "The parties hereby waive such jurisdiction as may be available to them and expressly submit to the Courts and Tribunals of Estepona, in the event of controversy or discrepancy over the interpretation or performance of the present contract."

Are there any legal people out there who can explain what this means to us ?

If anyone would like a copy of the contract in English (Word format) please request via "send private message".

Would be good if we could get a legal view from Maria del Castro on the query

  " How does a Community of Owners force performance from a developer in respect of siteworks and common facilities"

Will try to post on general forum

This message was last edited by Ianmack on 4/15/2007.

This message was last edited by Ianmack on 4/15/2007.

The whole thrust of these seems to be to get our own structure and administrators and set them after IL to force them to live up to their obligations. The budget should provide for expert advice (Legal, Architect). We can then proceed with our own plans to enhance the site.

does anyone know how the 4 separate communities are divided, i am buying in block 30 and assume my community is 28-32.

somehow we need to get the agms for each to happen together, (same month anyway. With most people in the uk and ireland busy with work etc this is easier said than done. as previously mentioned getting the gardens sorted is paramount. if anyone has any feedback on last weeks meeting it would be nice to hear, also to get one representative not necessarily resident from each community to come forward and discuss would be a start.

 

noddy

The communities are as follows:

PM1 - blocks 1 and 2

PM2 - blocks 3 to 20

PM3 - blocks 21 to 27

PM4 - blocks 28 to 32

Why PM2 is so vastly larger than the others I have no idea. I think the role of president in such a large development is going to be very challenging, there's an interesting article written by the president of a smaller community, this link should take you to it.  http://clicks.aweber.com/z/ct/?oFBs.OD18cKU7XyKWrzUgg

Further to Ian's copying from the General Forum, Roberto has done another post on 18 April, with some further advice. The general concensus from the more experienced people on the general forum appears to be to get rid of the developers chosen administrator, but perhaps not straight away? For PM1 and PM2 why not try to get Adminstrators as an agenda item as advised by someone on the general forum, and if deemed the right choice, give Ammex a chance, then if they don't improve by the time of the other two AGMs PM3 and PM4 can get rid of them, and PM1 and PM2 do the same next year. Why not use the gaps in the AGMs to our advantage? I'm nervous about knee-jerk reactions at the outset, but appreciate for all the reasons already outlined by others, Ammex need to go eventually. We are all novices at this and by changing too early we could be putting ourselves in a worse position. The combination of a novice, non-resident President and a weak new administrator could be a disaster. I don't think in PM1 there are any full time residents. However, if anyone recommends a good administrator who has taken over another site early on while snagging and building issues still prevail, we should consider it.  Until we have further information or recommendations, I think above all we should remain open-minded.

It's a shame no-one has really responded to your request for recommendations for good administrators, Ian, does that mean there aren't any!!?

Emma

I have made contact with a possible administrator for casares del sol but it is too short a time period to oust Ammex from PM1 at the 1st AGM but I do intend to get the ball rolling as regards to possibly replacing them as it would appear that despite all the negative feedback they are getting they are not spending any of our money on improvements and appear just to blame Interlaken for any lack of progress.

I will be attending PM1 agm and hope all owners in this community do so as well because we do need to stand together, to hopefuly get the changes in motion.

Anyone who is out there during 1st 2 weeks in June please contact as you may be able to come along to the agm and be prepared for yours

 

Kevin H  

All the points made in connection with Ammex seem sensible so far, I think I would prefer to give them a few months to get some improvement in the current situation as it seems to me that there is a lot of work needing done with Interlaken to improve the site, however if it appears they are not 100% dedicated to this then change is inevitable. The proposal made earlier of giving them a few months till the later AGMs seems a reasonable solution on balance. If we are going to make a change though we do need to speak to other adminstrators in advance to discuss costs, whether they have the resources and experience to take on the work needing to be done to get our site up to standard etc etc 

I was out there last week and went down to the Castillo area of Duquesa. There is a development down there overlooking the sea with quite superbly maintained gardens (at least as far as I could see). If we do need to change it might be worth speaking to some owners from this site as whoever is looking after their gardens seems to be doing a great job.

I have also stayed on another site in the San Pedro area for a few holidays in the past and that site is brilliantly maintained. I could speak to some owners and see who does their administration. It is always difficult to know however whether the committee is doing a good job of keeping the administrator on track or whether the administrator is more effective than others.

I agree with the comments from Emma/Kevin/Holhome.

We have the right to put on the agenda for the AGM "Administrators" and therefore inform Ammex their position is under scrutiny and they could be and will be replaced if they dont perform. It seems from Jenny's post regarding the meeting of 10/4/07 that Ammex are keen to sort our problems out and as such we can offer them time to do it. We will have the capability later to change them if required, but it seems they do need a chance with a real President to guide them.

The only recommendation i have recieved is for a company called GAEMU who are based in Sabinillas. It wouldnt do any harm to talk to diff admin companys at the moment if only to get an idea of costings etc and if Ammex dont deliver we will be in a good position to change.

Ian

I agree with Ians comments regarding Ammex as we dont have time to implement changes straight away perhaps give them until the last Agm takes place to show some improvementson the site and to convince all the owners that they have our interests at the top of their agenda, in the meantime we can source other people and prices.

Kevin H

Agree with Ian & Kevin.

Our priorities were made clear to Ammex at the recent informal meeting & staff/contractors need time to show that they can improve their performance.

However this doesn't stop us from considering alternatives in the meantime, and specific issues should be included on agendas as a matter of course so that performance is reviewed formally and action points agreed & documented.

 

Andrew

With regard to my posting of 15-4-07 below, i have received a response from Lewjan who has been in Spain for the last month and who owns an apt behind the Esso Station on the Casares roundabout. (Bahia Casares Complex)

1 Ammex were in with the Developer Jale and the community have been trying to get rid of Ammex since the start in 2004 but were unable due to the ownership situation between Ammex and Jale owning 51% of the votes.

2 Eventually the community secured enough votes prior to the AGM to vote off Ammex but Ammex got wind of it and resigned two days before the AGM. A new president and committee was voted in at the AGM, the president being a resident so as to enable him to closely oversee the new proposals they have put in place to sort the complex out to the owners wishes.

3 Ammex revealed at the AGM on closure that there was 20,000 euro's left in the kitty. This money subsequently went missing and the new President is actively persueing this amount.

4 They were charging 10,000 euro's per year for basically not carrying out the owners wishes and this being a much smaller community than CDS. (PM 4 charges were shown as 8,000 for last year)

5 Ammex were very difficult to get in contact with unless it was something they agreed with. If they didnt like the message or proposal they just did not respond! Even visits to their offices in Sabinillas proved a waste of time.

Posted for your views and thoughts.

Ian

By the way i still have had no response to my e-mail regarding the work req from Ammex prior to the AGM under the thread "Ammex Website". I now intend to phone to try and get some response.

 

 

 

A bit scary about the missing money - with my Chartered Accountant's head on, I have always thought that a key role will be in overseeing the accounts side of things and verifying where the money goes. I think it is very important that each PM has a qualified accountant on the committtee, if possible. I think there are plenty of us around! Perhaps another reason to hold off making hasty decisions until an owner has a handle on the finances and is in control of the cheque book!

Thanks for all the effort you've put in Ian.

Emma

I have just reviewed last years proposed budget for Pm2 and list some items below for discussion:

This is money presumably set aside by Ammex to provide services for the year 1st May 2006 to 30th April 2007. The main items are as follows but there are some odd figures of smaller amounts that add up to quite a large sum.

1  Cleaning communal stairs                              81,840    Euro's

2  Caretaker                                                             54,000

3  Honorary (Fees inc Vat)                                     29,328

4  Gardens                                                                75,000

5  Communal Electric                                             47,500

I know they have to set a budget but i cant imagine how they could have actually spent these amounts over the year. The electric has not been used that much on Pm2, and who or where is this caretaker etc, etc. The cleaning of the stairs i like to bet is done by a company who is linked to Ammex in some way as to making this rediculous amount of money almost legal! We need to get Ammex to prove that they have actually paid these sums out at the AGM and if there is some money left over it should be brought forward into next years budget and as such set to one side for the benefit of the owners to decide what to do with it, ie the landscaping and gardens. The total budget agreed for the year was 476,604 euro's. Does anyone know how many apts are in Pm2 (blocks 3-20 inclusive) to enable a quick calculation re community fees?

As Brutus mentioned in her minutes of the meeting on 10th April we need to change quite a few things in relation to what the money goes on, who gets it and how much ASAP. They must provide evidence at the AGM to back up these figures as these just dont add up. Much of Pm2 did not complete until Dec 2006 at the earliest.

Ian

Following ians summary and comments - is there a legal requirement (and hence safeguard for us) to have the accounts audited and if so who are they prepared for and if not us what rights do we have to challenge / seek redress / take to court?

Responding to Ian's post - the way it is done with our UK leashold properties is that each year a budget is set for the forthcoming year and a set of accounts produced for the year just finished. Then in 2nd and subsequent years the annual accounts can be compared to the budget prepared at the start of the year and from this information the 3rd / following years new budget is set. Ammex are floating around lots of set of budgets, but I would want and expect to see a set of actual accounts for the preceding year as well as budgets for the forthcoming one. Think of it as the way a business would run - a business would have a set of accounts for each financial year and larger businesses would have a budget for each financial year, which is prepared at the start of the year. It is obviously the budget which determines the community fees for the forthcoming year, as you say.

The budgets are probably done with plenty of margin for error - much better to have some left at the end of the year than over spend and be in debt. The adminstrators / President need to be sure that they are not going to be putting the community in a position where the community fees do not cover the expenses. There would, of course be an outcry from owners if more fees had to be requested. At the meeting on 10 April, there certainly seemed to be enough in the budgets to cover for example more lifeguards.

The community fees for each apartment would be based on each apartments set percentage of the total budget (called cuota in Spanish). Any agreed additional expenditure would be outside the budget and therefore if no amount allocated in the budget this would result in excess fees, again apportioned according to each apartment's cuota. The cuota for each apartment should be set out in the contract.  The only other item in the budget would be an additional amount which would go into a "reserve" or "sinking" fund for future communal repairs and maintenance - this is important and needs to be reviewed carefully, as if the sinking fund is not big enough to cover vital maintenance work in the future, everyone will end up with large additional amounts. Article 9 of the Law of Horizontal Property states that at least 5% of the normal operating budget must be put into a reserve fund each year.

Re number of properties, this was something I worked out for PM1 last night, coincidently: 2  bloques, each of our blocks must have 4 portals (I know this because we are portal 7 which is last but one), each portal has 2 apartments on each floor, 3 floors. So 6 apts per portal, 8 portals makes 48 apartments in PM1. (Having calculated this, I then felt lucky to be part of such a small community!) So PM2 must start at portal 9, if anyone can tell you the last portal in bloque 20, there's your answer! I don't know if each block has 4 portals or not. Actually, that can't be right, because not all portals have a 2nd floor do they, and if PM1 has 48 and PM2 400, that doesn't leave many aprts for PM3 and 4 as there are only 527 apts in total. Depends on roof terraces, etc.  Oh b*gger, I've got brain ache now; Andrew is going out for 24 hours tomorrow evening, I'll ask him to count apartments in PM1!!! I'll let you know the answer, it'll be a good guide. Have you tried asking Ammex?!

Gus - I have not yet got as far as finding out the requirements for audited accounts, etc in Spain. Unlikely, I would say. Personally if there is not a legal requirement, I would not want to waste community fees on an audit, I would do my own internal mini-audit, on an ongoing basis throughout the year. If there is an accountant on each committee who has done auditing in a current or former life, that could be part of their ongoing remit.