To all....
Here are some instances associated with ongoing Bank challenges...
Generic Guarantor Bank who was referenced in the purchase contract who failed to administer bank guarantees nor correctly safeguarded deposited monies as required in law, now perversely denying that they are guarantors, suggesting that they are merely endorsers!
Guarantor Banks in denial of inalienable rights, suggesting that it should be for the purchaser to ensure that deposited monies were protected!
Guarantor Banks denying that they are responsible for correctly backdated interest PRIOR to the date of Bank claim ( I.e. for those instances IN THE EARLY YEARS where purchasers made successful claims against developers but were subsequently compromised when they became insolvent), when in reality the banks’ compromising lack of administration and non adherence to existing law left purchasers at great risk from the outset of deposit, with little option but to litigate twice ( once against the developer and then against the Bank) in the event of proven breach and developer insolvency, and incur costs, stress and major delays to return of their monies in that process.
Banks who have lost their appeals who continue to obstruct by delaying return of monies as per judicial rulings until such time as enforcements are placed against them ( subjecting the innocent claimant to yet more interim costs.)
Banks who have refused to recognise majority case law until such time as SC doctrine has been achieved, which has been many years hence, (since this requires 2 SC rulings on the same point of law), and in the interim lengthy periods purposefully created elements of doubt, in full knowledge that this could impact return of claimants costs. This purposeful behaviour with manipulative intent that works to the unfair benefit of Banks, needs to be recognised here.
Banks ( as identified in this thread) who are endeavouring to wrongly suggest that purchasers were speculative in nature as a means of denying their own major negligences and non adherence to law that afforded purchasers with inalienable rights.
Banks who provided illegal BGs not recognised in Spain.
Banks who have merged during the interim lengthy periods leaving purchasers unaware of generic BGs that act as supportive evidence ( in the instances where banks failed to provide legal BGs from the outset thus denying purchasers of their inalienable rights).
And the list goes on......
Such continued denial and dereliction of duty to adhere to inalienable rights written into law intended to protect, just beggars belief, when you recognise that it has taken well over a decade to gain supportive majority case law, let alone supportive SC rulings ( it will no doubt be beyond two decades by the time this is resolved).
How long does this protracted piecemeal litigation have to continue before the SC rule emphatically that purchasers inalienable rights should be fully respected, taking into account that majority case law has increased ( via supportive appeal court rulings) and the SC have increasingly ruled in support of claimants in the interim lengthy periods?
This ongoing obstructive and manipulative behaviour on the part of Banks and non compliance with law intended to protect from the outset, with complete disregard for purchasers inalienable rights is a disgrace that does a great disservice to Spain’s reputation and their system of justice.
How long does this piecemeal litigious approach that is sadly being exploited by the Banks without due respect to inalienable rights have to continue? .......ad infinitum?
Given all of the above, isn’t it time that the Supreme Court ruled swiftly and emphatically to ensure that Banks honour purchasers inalienable rights?