HDT deposit interests

Hi

when your lawyers demanded the cash from the banks via a threat on their assets, our lawyer had our money very soon. from winning our appeal it took roughly 6 weeks to get deposit back to the uk

That was not too bad any sign of interest and costs.

Did the bank not paid the court the money after the first sentence and the 

money is held by the court. Why do the courts hold the money which is not theirs.

Anyway I am still grumpy till more people get money returned.

Hi all,

i am just at the start of the court process, my case will hopefully be filed in next couple of weeks, I will keep you posted on how things go throughout. 

Claire.

Dear Trowell1,

I don't know why Lucas associates gave you those figures, butI can say they are clearly wrong.

Court nº 5 in Alicante sentenced bank to pay deposit plus legal interest, 42,784.40 euros in total. But judge didn't award legal cost. We did calculare our legal cost upon Alicante Bars' Association rules, which are 7,363.57 for first instance and 50% on that for appeal (3,681,8 €), including expenses. Total € 11,045.35 (includes 21% VAT )

In addition, we haven't charge you some extra job, like the provisional enforcement claim, which we have made for free.

I have just emailed you copies of the Alicante rules, and the software we use to calculate legal cost autmatically, so you can ycheck that our calculation is correct. But if you still dont trust us, please feel free to contact the Bars' Association in Alicante. The can confirm you that our calculation is correct.

Kind Regards,

Guadalupe

Dear Trowell1,

on previos post I forgot to mention that Alicante Bars association rules for fees applicable to your case are nº 15 (for first instance proceeding) and rule nº 50 (for appeal).

Kind Regards,

Guadalupe

Guadalupe

In your experience how long should it take court to release money after an appeal.

I know courts are slow in Spain but delays do not seem fair.

The real point is that the fees depend, firstly, on what you agree with your solicitors.

Fees are applied on the total amount recovered.

Appart from that, you must consider that the fees are charged with 21% VAT.

Once said that, I must disagree with Guadalupe,as my figures are not "clearly wrong", as I am talking on a general purpose and not a particular case and, according to the fees rules of the Association Bars of Comunidad Valenciana, for a claim of 45.000 €, quite in the average we claim, the fees are around 13,8% of the amount recovered, and circa 7% for appeal. And if the amounts recovered are higher, the percentage is lower.

​Always, plus 21% VAT.

It can be truth that for a particular purpose of a lowest claim, the percentage for fees run up a bit.

I don't know the particular case of Trowel1 and can't give my opinion. But I don't think my information, in the framework of a general purpose, is "claerly wrong".

Appart form all that, the timescales may vary depending on the Coourt hearing your case, as there are faster ones and slower ones. For instance, we had a hearing on thursday 28th may and another on monday 1st june. We've already received the ruling of the one heared on 1st june, but not the one of the case heared 28th may.

And, for the money effective recovery (until you have it in your accounts) the timescale varies depending on the bank's attitude: if they put the money into the Courts' accounts voluntarily, is faster than if you have to get the money through a threat on their assets, which takes much longer.  

Hi

are my calculations roughly correct

if you won claim £45,000     -  13.8% +7% +21% fees (€11,325). Leaves you with €33.675.    ? 

thanks 

diane

Dear "LucasAsociados",

I can assure you that our calculation is correct. Alicante Bars Association rules applicable on 42,784.40 euros clearly show that fees for first instance amounts to € 7,363.57 (21% VAT tax included), and extra 50% on appeal.

Please find below the copy of the applicable "Escala" for the first instance, as well as the calculation,which is made automatically. We have confirmed with the Bars Association in Alicante that our calculation is 100% correct.

I will appreciate people, in general, stop messing about it.

Kind Regards,

Guadalupe

Interesting Calculator -

42,784.40 at 9% = 3850.60 plus 21% VAT = 4659.23 which is different to 7,363.57.

Am I missing something ?

Dear rjmderry,

you are not calculating correctly, itsn't that simple. Total amount is divided on stages, so then you get applicable percentages.

For example, on first € 300 recovered, percentage applicable is 42%.

From € 300 to € 600, percentage is 36%.

etc

And you must also bear in mind the "acumulado".

As I said, we have confirmed with Bars Association that our calculation is 100% correct. I am just doing this because I don't want people to speculate with our professionalism. We are not laying or trying to cheat our customers, and there is nothing we have to hide. That's all.

Please stop speculating.

Kind Regards,

Guadalupe

This message was last edited by Guadalupe. Lawyer on 05/06/2015.

This message was last edited by Guadalupe. Lawyer on 05/06/2015.

Dear Guadalupe,

There is a difference between speculating and trying to understand !

The key learning point here is transparancy as obviously Trowell1 who I presume is your client did not really understand the fees involved on your success.

Dear rjmderry,

we always anwer our customers enquiries, so this client should have get back to us and question rather than suggesting on a public forum that we might be trying to charge him more that what he owe us.

Just for you to know.

I dont understand the fees charged either, but I dont see the posts here as being anyone calling anyone a liar, just a straighforward posting by a person saying they are surprised by the amount they have been charged.

I could have started my own court process with my lawyer earlier if I had been able to understand the fees better.  I am still nervous about what the outcome may be, when I get information, and if there are any 'hidden fees' to come.

It's a basis of trust between client and profession, and if it's not clear what the charges are going to be, the trust is affected I feel.

Anyway, thats what I think....!!  its not really speculation, just an opinion.  Perhap it can be made easier to understand?

Wihout any hidden intent , what I dont understand in the wider education process is why are successful claims being denied costs and how this complies with Ley 57/68?

Please Guadalupe, could you explain the reasons why costs are being denied and if this is in your legal opinion, in contravention of Ley 57/68?

Many thanks.

Dear Guadalupe,

After reading again my post, I don't understand why you feel attacked or why you understand I said your calculations were wrong, but, honestly, I think you are overeacting.

I'VE NEVER MENTIONED anything about YOUR FEES; I NEVER SAID IF YOUR FEES WERE RIGHT OR WRONG; and, of course, nothing about your professional relationships with Trowel1.

I strongly believe that you've billed him correctly.

If you read what I said, I just gave a general view on how much the interests and the fees would be for a general purpose. And, from the very beginning, I've said that I had no doubt on the honesty of the professionals and advised member of the forum to contact their solicitors directly to solve any doubt.

On top of that, in further posts, I explain everthing more accurate, but never focused on a particular case and, of course, nor on a particular professional.

So, I see no messing or specullations from my part.

In any case, accept my apologies if you've felt damaged for any of the things I've posted. Believe me I've never tried to do anything against you or any other colleague, bus just bring some light on the matter.

Kind regards

Dear Ads,

Legal cost is regulated on Spanish civil procedural law. General rule is that loser party must meet defense cost, but if judge understands that there are serious doubts in law or in fact, cannot award legal cost.

Lack of individual bank guarantees is not a pacific issue, because High Court has not set legal precedent yet, and Appeal Courts have different criterias about it.

So to win a case with no individual bank guarantees is not easy, and should be conisdered a big success although no legal cost is awarded. 

Kind Regards,

Guadalupe

Hi Guadalupe,

First, many thanks for all the information which you have given us on this forum. it has been invaluable and very much welcomed.

Second, It seems that you are saying that because some/most depositors [like me] did NOT receive a bank guarantee from the bank [BBVA] that it would be difficult to be awarded legal costs.  As I understood it the bank acted illegally by not issuing guarantees.  Why is this not then taken into account by judges when deciding if legal costs should be awarded to plaintiffs?  

I look forward to your reply with great interest,

best regards,

JohnA

John,

I don't understand this especially when I have seen BBVA's initial defense. They said if they were told by courts to return funds that were paid into a special account, they would do this ! But no, they appealed, the appeal courts were still on our side but did not award the legal costs against BBVA. Because we were in a group action with different scenarios, it seems as if the first judge and then the appeal judges got confused and didn't apply a consistent ruling. Only just found out costs cannot be appealed in the High Courts.

In hindsight, would not have joined a group action but a straight forward individual case because our legal fees were not any cheaper as a group action but would have been considerably lower if we had lost the case !

Law whether in the UK or Spain is never black or white so we should be thankful that in 2 hearings we have won but not the legal costs.

Hi John, 

what for you and many other people seems clear, itsn't clear for many others. Before 2004/2005, you can't find any judgement against a Bank with no idnividual bank guarantee. It was accepted that Bank's liability just arose when individual bank guarantees was in place. Our Law Firm, together with many other, have made a great job to convince judges that lack of individual bank guarantees is not enforceable against the buyer. But there are still judges who don't believe so. High Court Civil Chamber is about to sentence about this specific matter (I would advise you to read our last post on our blog). Keep fingers crossed!

Kind Regards,

Guadalupe