HIGH COURT CONFIRMS THAT GENERIC BANK GUARANTEES FOR SANTA ANA ARE ENFORCEABLE

Hi Lucas Associates, Is Santander the Court Bank for all Courts or just for the one involved in this case? What would happen if Santander was the Bank involved in the litigation?

There are some Courts (very few) that require a bank account from the lawyer in the case to send a direct transfer, but when the amounts are "big" (over 12.000 €), they prefer to make the payment order issued in favour of the client.

Perhaps the reason of this extreme caution is any bad previous experience.

In any case, we agree they should choose sending the one into the account of the lawfirm that gained POA to take on with all tramits, and then everything would be quite much faster.

But this is not something of our choice, but the judges'.

So, one the order of payment in favour of the client is presented by us, as representative of the client, Banco Santander must make sure before paying that the POA is enough to get money in the name of the client.

And they, of course, could do that just by reading the POA, which is clear enough.

But, according to their internal rules, they always need a favourable crosscheck report of the legal dept in that sense before doing any payment. And here is where we have a bottleneck.

Of course what you propose would simplify everything, and you are not missing anything, but both people in the administration and the banks love bureaucracy.

Hi, M11block

Santander Bank holds nearly all the bank acounts of the Courts, and the only exceptions accepted are when Banco Santander does not have a branch in the village in which the Courts are placed (i.e. in Berja -Almeria- there's not any branch of Banco Santander, and the Courts of Berja have their accounts in BBVA).

If the bank involved in the litigation is Banco Santandr nothing should change. They are obliged to pay, and if they don't they get their accounts seized, and the money is transferred into the Court's bank account in Santander, from which Santander is obliged to make any payment ordered by the holder, which is the Court itself.  

Thank you Lucas Asociados.

In the spirit of transparency and given the call for greater efficiency of the existing court and justice system (without compromising consumer protection I hasten to add!)....... might there be a conflict of interests here (rather than it be perceived solely as an excess of bureaucracy), as the court's Bank appears to gain interest on monies deposited during the period prior to transference (just as they do in the lengthy time periods between provisional execution followng first instance court rulings when monies are deposited into court accounts until such time as a final ruling following appeals/SC clarification is achieved)?

Is this correct?

If so there will be little incentive by the courts or their Bank to improve efficiency measures and safely simplify procedures so long as the courts' Bank benefits financially from these bureaucratic or administrative/judicial delays, especially when there are large amounts of monies being deposited, as with Ley 57/68 cases.

Is this in practice a viscious circle making claimants not  only susceptible to continuing and increasing / compromising delays but also using their monies in these lengthening interim periods  to subsidise (prop up) a court system currently deprived of adequate government resources required to improve the system?

How can this possibly be considered ethical practice or in accordance with the rule of law (see below), especially when failure to introduce effiiciency measures or fair time constraints to prevent excessive delays (YEARS in all too many instances), has compromised innocent claimants from achieving timely return of their monies in recognition of their inalienable rights, and sadly only adds to consumer distrust leading to understandable reticence to reinvest in Spain?

How can this conflict of interest be avoided and how can greater efficiency and timely justice ever be achieved under these circumstances?

The rule of law according to the world justice project specifies:

1. The government and its officials and agents as well as individuals and private entities are accountable under the law.
2. The laws are clear, publicized, stable, and just; are applied evenly; and protect fundamental rights, including the security of persons and property.
3. The process by which the laws are enacted, administered, and enforced is accessible, fair, and efficient.
4. Justice is delivered timely by competent, ethical, and independent representatives and neutrals who are of sufficient number, have adequate resources, and reflect the makeup of the communities they serve.

Victheviking,

sorry if you have been asked this before but -  did you have a bank guarantee?   i imagine you did as the bank didn't appeal.  congratulations on a successful result. that guarantee might just have saved you euros 10,00!

all the best,

John [in Lancashire too]

Hi John, 

No we didn't  have a bank guarantee. Cancelled contract in 2008 when Hdt first went into Voluntary Administration, and voted no to the subsequent deal offered by Hdt. 

Quite surprised  that BBVA didn't appeal. Although I think the SC Ruling occurred at the same time and may have been the reason that BBVA did not appeal, only speculating though.

Also SGR have  not been included in  the  judgement unlike in other cases. 

Speaking to legal team, they are appealing  judges decision to only award interest from the date we took the case to court (2009 I think) and not from the date we paid our deposit (Nov 2006).

To be honest, I had written the money off many years ago in order to be able to move on in my life, and although I would love to be awarded full amount of interests and costs, I would accept just the deposit back and an end to the whole 10 year saga !

Not sure when we will see any money and what amount it would be, it just seems to keep rolling on and on , sure BBVA will find another loophole to try and wriggle out of  paying it back 

Hi Victheviking,

thanks again for that info.  just shows how inconsistent the whole process is.

like you, i have no bank guarantee. the bank is BBVA, BUT they DID appeal.  my case was in Alicante in May and they appealed around 20 July.  i paid my money directly to the bank..... did you? [that might be why SGR weren't mentioned]. I paid my deposit in Dec 2006. 

i was awarded deposit, interest [i haven't been informed at what interest rate nor from what date], plus costs.  i'm wondering if it's mainly the awarding of costs which makes the bank decide to appeal. maybe they know they have to repay the deposit and interest but the awarding of costs is up to the judge's decision and the bank believe they have a good chance of persuading the appeal judge to reverse the award decision?

i actually have my deposit and some of the interest in my UK bank, got it last month.

also, like you, i too had written the money off for the same reasons as you did.

which solicitor are you with?  i'm with Lucasasociados.

i can't see how the bank would stop your repayment now as they lost and didn't appeal against the judgement. fingers crossed for you, even so.

i'm attempting to find a pattern to the court decisions but it aint easy!

all the best,

John

all the best, 

This is what is so morally indefensible the way that Banks endeavour to wear down innocent offplan purchasers and exploit the lack of time constraints and a justice system that requires the Supreme Court to fully endorse all articles of an existing law that ironically provides inalienable rights.

To deal with appeals in such a piecemeal fashion at Supreme Court level (as opposed to clarifying ALL articles of this law once and for all) where each individual point of law is having to be challenged (twice) in order to gain consistency of judicial interpretation, appears wasteful in the exteme, not only of court and judicial resources, but also places innocent claimants at risk of a "legal lottery" in the lengthy interim periods (with little consistency of judicial moral authority being demonstrated to counter Banks' manipulative ploys).

In this process, innocent claimants are being exposed to further financial exposure from defending their rights since award of costs for some are being equally compromised and at present appear unrecoverable. The Banks are exploiting this piecemeal approach to Justice, which in turn is doing great harm not only to the existing overstretched court and judicial systems but increases the level of fear and lack of trust in the Spanish Justice system as a fair and ethical system. So sad, and so unnecessary.

This message was last edited by ads on 03/12/2015.

Hi John, 

We also paid directly to the BBVA bank account  details  we were given by Hdt when we received the initial contract and had proof of this . We also paid in Dec 2006.

We had no knowledge of SGR  until the  day before the hearing when in a meeting with our legal team (Isabel Montesinos @ Imont legal services) she told us that a representative from  both BBVA and Sgr would be at the hearing .

From what we understood, Sgr are a form  of guarantor who also should have protected our deposit, along with the  bank. 

There was no mention of them in any of the paperwork we had and we had never heard of them in relation to our claim, although we had heard them mentioned on here.

I think the problem is there are so many variables relating to each individual claim ( date deposit paid, whether a guarantee  was issued, cancellation of contract etc) a pattern is hard to find. The only constant is we are all owed our deposits back legally and are entitled to costs and interest too. 

Hopefully  with the SC ruling, cases may be resolved easier in the future.

I have my fingers crossed for Father Christmas  bringing me a nice big cheque for Christmas this year, but knowing how long the whole  process  has  taken so far, I'm not overly optimistic! !

On a side note, I too am from Blackpool  originally and my Grandad lived in Poulton (Highcross Rd) until he passed away a few years ago. I still have some family who live in the area, but moved from Blackpool myself over 35 years ago! Small world eh.?

Hi Vicki,

I hope you get that nice present for Christmas!  I'm not usually very patient when it comes to dealing with beaurocracy but tbh i've learned to let this mess take its' course and have adopted a  'it'll happen when it happens' attitude.

i'm also from Poulton as it happens! its' a great place to live.

with best regards,

John