Structural Survey

Antonia represented the Izquierda Unida the left and  'Green Party' . She is strong on conservation, protection of vineyards etc. So she may be in favour of a tax to tidy the place up!!! However my wife and I know her from 5 years ago and I think she is approachable.

 I assume that everybody is going to ignore the bill or do we know if they intend to take it directly from your bank?

This message was last edited by manilvajl on 6/9/2007.

I emailed Nicky Hann, who is a contact involved with the group appealing the formation of the EUC  through the courts (or will do when they get more people registered!!) about what the status of DV is in that it isn't a completed development and would the developer be liable for the costs of all unsold apartments and/or those not yet completed on and just wanting a little more info and thought I would post her reply here:


"Thanks for your email.  AEA sent me an email to confirm that Duquesa Village
is included in El Hacho last week.  BUT they are not the administrators for
the EUC entity.  However, they used a lot of their community votes (in at
least one case they did not have the authority to do) to vote for this new
EUC & the present committee.   One of the people on the committee used to
work with them (Victor Martinez - secretary to EUC) but apparently does not
do so any more.....

I don't know how DV stands if it is not yet complete except that the EUC tax
will be levied on all properties in the El Hacho area and that this will be
an additional tax on top of your rates and community fees.   I don't know
how the developers will handle the EUC tax on those properties not yet sold
but as the owner of Ros Y Falcon is the President of the EUC committee, I am
sure this will be sorted out some how !  I would hope that those of you in
DV who ARE registered would not have a double tax to cover those who aren't
but I honestly don't know.  At the moment, its impossible to understand how
the co-efficient for each property has been calculated....its one of the
things we need to find out about and is included on our list of complaints !

I will send you emails as things develop.  Our next meeting is on 14th July
- hopefully at the Golf Club...I will confirm nearer the time."


Personally, I realise Ros y Falcon most probably have a right to be heard, if they are owners of property in the El Hacho area, but having one of their owners as President of the EUC I personally think a little conflicting - especially as they are one of the developers contributing to the damage and destruction caused by heavy trucks and equipment scouring the hill.  Just doesn't sit well with me, although not sure about the legality or ethics here.

Apparently owners will be billed directly although cannot see how they can just deduct it from your bank accounts (although, if they have your account number they could probably pay their personal phone bills with your money from our recent experience!!).  And don't know what the position would be if you don't pay, although the Minutes of their meeting to state something about guarantees to cover those owners who decide not to pay.

We are joining the group to take this issue to Court and hope that many others will, as they need 500 owners and only have 300 to date.  A few hundred euros (this year! what next?) may not seem a lot but it's the principle involved here.  Why should we pay to have the port repaved and other such things.  In fact, do all the owners of property in the port (restaurants, etc., if owned and not leased) have a liability?  Or do certain developers (like Ros y Falcon) own many of the port buildings and it would be great for them if owners of the whole area put up money to pay for what may be their or the town hall's liability?

Sorry for venting here, but owners should be aware of what is happening.

This message was last edited by Pitby on 6/9/2007.

What gives AEA  the right to vote on our behalf.  Seems like another good reason to get rid of them as soon as possible.

Any news on date for an AGM ??   Has anyone had any news re the audited accounts we requested at the March meeting ??

 

Unfortunately, isn't the DV community President a director or something of AEA?  I believe that is why he can represent us, even though he wasn't actually elected by the owners, but appointed by RyF.

Although, I would like to have thought that regarding something like this, he would have contacted the owners, but I think it's a case of RyF being the majority owner in DV at the moment in any case.

This message was last edited by michael52 on 6/10/2007.

Just noticed this posting.
If I understand this correctly we residents will all pay an additional tax to enhance the area.
Ros Y Falcon won't pay anything.

There seems to be two factors to this:
1) repairs to damage
2) enhancement to the general area

In either case the main beneficiary at this time will be Ros Y Falcon as it improves the salability
of all their unsold properties.

I guess we owners benefit to some extent from enhancements but
why should we fund the repair of the damage and  of wear and tear caused by the developers activities.
It seems very unjust and verging on unethical.

It's not just our community - it's all those that border the golf course, plus those in the port area, save for Marina de la Duquesa, for some reason.  And it's not just wear and tear and damage, either.  It's repaving and relighting of the port area, lighting under the bridge that leads to the port, etc.   The port is used by all and sundry and why should those communities up on the hill pay towards what should be the town hall's responsibility and what we are paying our IBI tax for?

Yes, 300 euro or so isn't a lot this year (on top of our property tax and community fees - and so long as you don't own four or five properties there!!), but what about next year, when maybe the town hall want to extend the marina, or something like that and are looking for more money from each property?  And what about the legality of the formation of this EUC?

This isn't just about what Ros y Falcon (they're not the only developers in the area, although one of the most prominent), it's about what us, as owners of property in the listed communities, will be paying for what should be the liability of the town hall and developers' (of all the communities listed).

It's the principle of the whole thing - this was tried before, around 2002, and was apparently disbanded.

If you haven't already got all the details of what is actually happening and what the action group are doing (they have solicitors instructed, but need another two hundred property owners for them to fight the case) and if you would like to join the group who are appealing against this EUC, PM me and I will send you the details.

This is an interesting problem.

The area has declined since we 1st reserved our apartment (phase 3) 2 years ago and if it continues to decline/deteriorate we shall all loose far more than the 300 euros' per annum mooted costs, in the reduced value of our properties due to the state of the surrounding areas.

No we don't wont to pay twice or take on the responsibities of the local authority, but I can see some advantage in us having some, if only minor, control of what is done to keep the area in a good condition.

We do need to ensure that the Macro Community is legal & properly constituted. Also that the budgets are realistic and we get value for money. The idea though is not unique to Spain and there are two areas close to where I live in the Uk, which operate along similar lines & within the area of an overall local authority.

Yes visitors to the area benifit for free, but we benifit when we visit other areas. Of far more importance I think, is that the port area and the immediate surrounding areas around the hill/golf course etc, are maintained to a high standard, which will ultimately benifit us all by maintaining our property values and encouraging a pride in the area.

John

This message was last edited by John 777 on 6/10/2007.

John, I agree with you, but with all respect this should happen without the communities around el hacho paying twice for it!

The town hall should be upkeeping the whole area with the property tax (IBI) that thousands of property owners around the hill are/will be paying and the money that the developers deposit with the town hall for the reparation of roads, etc.

If the local authority aren't doing this with the property tax that owners already pay, then will they actually do it with the extra monies received from these specific communities?  They are required, by law, to adopt roads and services constructed by the developers once they are completed, and maintain them.  So why now does a macro community, formed by the town hall, have to take on this responsibility and pay for it.

I don't have a problem with a macro community if it benefits those who contribute into it and if it's legally formed and democratically voted upon but it would appear this one has not been.

Also, it's not just visitors to the area that will benefit - it's all other owners of property in communities in the surrounding areas which aren't included, such as Marina de la Duquesa!  Right next to the port!  And many other developments in close proximity to the port, who will all benefit from this, but who won't have to contribute.





This message was last edited by Pitby on 6/11/2007.

It is an interesting problem for sure. I do not have any issue with paying this tax if it can be shown to be legal, because if it isn't then we do not have to pay. But then we get to the point of who will maintain and repair the infrastructure if it found to be illegal and we do not pay. If you read the minutes of the meeting to set up the EUC it seems to me that the town hall makes a distinction between maintenance and repair of urban centres and urbanisations. If that is the case then we need the area maintained then we need a legal EUC and at least we will have elected representatives to haranque or praise depending whether we are happy or sad about something.

I was an owner last Novemeber when the meeting took place and I know of nobody at that time who was advised of this meeting to elect the community members...which doesn't sound correct. However other developments were represented so perhaps it was another oversight by AEA.

I think it is unfair that some areas will benefit without contribuiting so that needs fixing, and i want to ensure it is legally formed with the appropriate safequards, so that is why i am joining the splinter group opposing this , but  I am less likely to trust the mandarins of Manilva Town Hall with any more of my money than a legally formed EUC.

 

 

I totally agree with you, JC1, and we are registering our interest with the group/solicitors also. Personally, I believe this should be, as someone else has suggested elsewhere,  something for the whole area and not just those developments bordering the golf course and, selectively, in the port area.  All of us would benefit from improvements in the area, so all of us should pay.  I don't think there is any owner within a quite substantial radius of the port that doesn't benefit from it's upkeep and beautification.  Why aren't Marina de la Duquesa, Arenal Duquesa, Los Granados, etc., also subjected to this payment?  They will also benefit from this.  (In fact, I'm not able to list all developments who will benefit but who are not included in this duplicated tax, they are so numerous.)

So a legally formed EUC, with a finite time limit and specific objectives and budgets listed, I believe would be considered feasible by ALL owners in the area.

AEA are not the administrators of this EUC, but that doesn't absolve them (especially as they obviously have a vote in this) from the fact that they chose not to inform all those owners who had completed when this EUC was formed.  AEA, and the DV President, should have notified owners of this, without question.  I realise that a President represents its' community, but in these circumstances, owners should have been informed.

Totally agree with you Pitby & JC.

A properly set up macro community can only benefit the whole area and all developments that use the local facilities, but it must be set up and run by the properly elected representatives of the residents of the communities and not left to the Town Hall or the developers to run roughshod over us.

What about those in course of development such as Coto Real and the Duquesa Marina. Also shoudn't the shops , bars and restaurants also be contributing as they will obviously be better served by improvements to the area.

Am contacting the solicitors for the group action to register with the 300

 

This message was last edited by michael52 on 6/11/2007.

This message was last edited by michael52 on 6/11/2007.

Great.  I, personally, have had a few others ask for details and confirm they are registering with the solicitors for the action group.

A good idea, in the right hands, run correctly, with the appropriate contributors, cannot fail!  But then, dreams come at a price!  I don't think the price of this EUC stands up to scrutiny at this point in time!!

We all have to ensure that this is a legal and functional entity, that ALL beneficiaries in the area contribute to!  No mathematical genius applied there.  Just realistic!!  I don't think anybody would object to contributing to something that enhances their place of abode (or temporary abode!) so long as everybody in the area contributes likewise!!

If anybody is around on Saturday 14th July at 10 am  there is a meeting in the golf club of the residents who have joined the protest. I believe this is one of their regular update meetings. I will be attending although it might play havoc with my golf plans...

 

Has anybody thought of using the new Sky channel Living in Spain ( on sky channel 293) they are looking for articles/interviews etc. If Manilva Town Hall are seen to be allowing illegal entities they may not like it.

Perhaps an invite to the meeting on 14th July?

http://www.livinginspain.tv/index.htm

Bought in Phase 3.  We will be in Spain and can attend on the 14th July and it would be good to meet up with some  Duquesa Village residents.

Derek and Fionnuala

Ireland

Posting a response from Rosa at AEA re AGM date and EL Hacho

Dear Mr. Cox,
 
RE: AGM DATE.  I informed of the suggested dates and amstill waiting confirmation on this or any other given date from the President.  We have everything prepared and ready, accounts, budget etc. and only pending a date.
 
RE: EL HACHO.  We have posted on the community web site all available information that we have been able to obtain.  Needless to say we will provide further information the moment we get it.  Please bear in mind that AEA is not on the EUC EL HACHO governing board, and so cannot attend their board meetings whenever these are held.  AEA did not constitute this entity.
 
We were informed two days prior to the meeting in november that this was going to take place.  We tried to obtain as much information as possible of what was going to be discussed, proposals, annual budget etc.  information which we relayed on to all of the Presidents and Vice-Presidents of the affected communities that were included within this EUC area and of which we were Administrators.  We fully explained to them what an EUC was and what it entailed for owners.  Some Presidents and Vice-Presidents were able to attend other entrusted us with their proxy votes dully signed and specifying their votes on Agenda items.
 
Before the EUC existed there was a Macro-community servicing the area, and which also billed out to the communities, who in turn had to provide for this in their yearly budgets.  One of the differences now is that the EUC El Hacho invoices individually to the owners.  
 
One of the Agenda items for the AGM is precisely the EUC El Hacho.  We will inform of al matters pertaining to this subject and advise our owners accordingly, we will also answer any questions that owners wish to raise on the subject.  Naturally we are aware of the importance and significance of the EUC El Hacho for residents and future of the area. 
 
Since the Macro-community was dissolved and the constitution of the EUC entity there was a four year gap during which there was a minimal infrastructure service, virtually no improvements and constant deterioration.
 
IAs Administrators of Duquesa Village AEA  has acted correctly & legally and will continue to do so whilst we are Administrators of the complex.  If you feel to the contrary and therefore need to seek legal advise please do so as I am totally confident that your lawyer will corroborate my statement.
 
Regards,
 
Rosa Escuadra
Grupo AEA Administracion SL.
 

 

JC

Great that you finally managed to get a response

Interesting to note that Rosa states That "  Before the EUC existed there was a Macro-community servicing the area, and which also billed out to the communities, who in turn had to provide for this in their yearly budgets", but that AEA did not make any mention of this macro community in any previous correspondence or include any such amount in the budgets that they have circulated to us.

Overlooked ?? or deliberate ??

Await next installment of the El Hacho saga with interest

Michael52, the community that was previously in place was apparently disbanded some years ago - allegedly in disgrace.  As the area does seem to have been in decline somewhat, one wonders exactly what happened with the previous macro-community.

AEA obviously didn't mention this as this community is a newly formed one - but then one asks the question why weren't those owners, who had completed on their properties prior to this meeting in November last year, advised of this?  Were they just expected to receive the bill from the administrators of the EUC and say "fine, better get it paid then"?

I actually believe that it is probably the case, though, that as DV isn't  yet a completed development, that owners won't yet be billed.  Has anyone in DV received the invoice from the EUC?  Others, in other  developments, have.

It may be, as well, why DV isn't listed in the communities on the el hacho website (although, that may also just be bad administration!).

I still think though that AEA had a duty to advise all owners who had already completed in DV, and who have completed since November.  What exactly are we paying them for!!  I think it borders on negligence that they have not advised us of this, particularly bearing in mind that they are, I think, through the President, representing DV - until such time as the owners are in a position to vote in a new president.

Thanks for getting that info from AEA, John!

Thanks for getting all that info.

I agree with Jan.  I think the reason we are not listed and haven't been billed yet is probably due to the development not being finished but I would guess those of us in phases 1 and 2 will start receiving bills shortly if the developer shrugs off his responsibility...