Londoner - Barclays Spain

Has anyone else received the email from AEA on El Hacho

This is indeed a worrying situation and they are right to highlight it but surely its the Manilva Council who need to pull their finger out and take a view and then take immediate action to resolve the situation once and for all.

Steve

The legality of the El Hacho multi community is being challenged in the Courts as the notice states.

To date RYF have apparently been paying on our behalf,although we have not seen any proof of this. That is one reason why we must see audited accounts for our community before the AGM

El Hacho is discussed more fully on Paul's site Manilva Life.

Michael

Steve

 

Yes I have just received said email.I was hopimg it was a mistake being sent just to me. Have replied to the email asking if this has any significance to us at Duguesa Village.

Awaiting reply.

Mark

 

Just to reply to my last responce. Have received a reply from AEA Administration (Jose Luis)

This does effect us at Duguesa Village.

Cheers

Mark

 

Just to make it clear AEA are only acting as a post box for El Hacho...they are not involved with any aspects if its management although they know what is going on.

Duquesa Village is not mentioned on the documetation setting up the El Hacho mega community, but our president represents a number of communities and insists that we are affected. Together with RYF they have stated that RYF has paid the levy up to and including 2007, but will not do so for 2008.

If you refer to previous threads on this subject and the threads on Paul's Manilva Life, you will see that the whole legality of this mega community (which excludes a significant number of developments that benefit more than we will) and the location of vast sums of missing money is ongoing.

However I agree that this whole affair appears to be hanging over us. It needs to be kept under constant review and should be put on the AGM agenda.

Michael

Could anyone please update us as to what was communicated in the email from AEA regarding El Hacho.
Many thanks.
Anne

1.   I 've not been sent the email although I'm sure AEA were given my email address.  
So as a side issue "How do you formally register your email address with AEA to ensure communication?" 

2.  Could someone please post the text of the email  here ?

3.  Michael,    You statement about seeing the RfY El Hacho Payments in the accounts is curious., 
My understanding was that the El Hacho fee is paid by apartment owners  and not the Community as an entity.

If this is so that   RfY paid the El Hacho Community fees in 2006 and 2007 as the Developer /Owner of the apartments. 
So we should  expect to see any transactions in the AEA community accounts.
It begs the question I would RfY  have to continue to pay fees  for 2007 for those empty apartments?

regards,
Paul

You should not see any mention of El Hacho on the audited (or otherwise) accounts as these payments are for individual owners of properties, not for the community.  If RyF have paid these fees for 2007, it is out of their own pockets, not DV's.

For 2008, again, this is not a community issue (as in the fees, that is) it is an individual owner one.  If RyF have to pay for those apartments which have their LFO but have not been sold, then it is RyF's business, not the community's.

Whether RyF pay the El Hacho fees has nothing to do with the community accounts and only begs concern should we, as El Hacho EUC property owners, wish to know who has or has not contributed and is/is not helping towards the maintaining of acceptable conditions in and around El Hacho.

The fact that the formation of the EUC is still under debate, in Court or not, does not mean that we should not pay - on the contrary, as far as I'm aware, the interim judgment made was that we are still liable to pay, with those monies put into an "escrow" or some such account until the matter is decided. 

Please find below a copy of the email I received from AEA

CIRCULAR TO ALL THE OWNERS OF

THE EL HACHO DEVELOPMENT .-

WITH A COPY TO THE MANILVA LOCAL AUTHORITY.-

The reason for this circular is to make known to all the owners on the El Hacho development and to the Manilva Local Authority the very serious economic situation that the “Entidad Urbanística de Conservación El Hacho”1(EUC) is going through as well as the fatal consequences that this unsustainable situation might involve.

For this purpose, we shall make a brief historical summary of what has occurred over the last few years:

1.- The town-planning burden involved in the maintenance of the urbanisation work of sector CD-2 El Hacho corresponds to the owners in accordance with the determinations of the Plan Parcial de Ordenación El Hacho2, included in the current Plan General de Ordenación Urbana de Manilva3.

2.- In those cases in which that town-planning burden falls upon the owners, they are obliged to make themselves an Entidad Urbanística Colaboradora de Conservación. This has certain operational advantages with regard to the previous Owners’ Association:

 

- The power to apply the compulsory procedure in cases of non-payment.

 

- The individualised charging of the charges.

 

- The legal status of a public nature and the requirement of incorporation which is provided for by our legal Regulations.

 

3.- Since the first stone was laid in the above-mentioned sector this charge has been accepted historically by “The Owners’ Association of the El Hacho Development”.

4.- In the year 2000, when over 60% of the land suitable for building remained to be developed, it was determined that there are differences of infrastructure which make the development of that land impossible.

5.- In this situation, the totality of the promoters with interest in the matter agreed on the execution of works of infrastructure to make possible the normal development of that land pending execution such as: the creation of new centres of transformation, the creation of new hydraulic networks, the construction of new road networks, etc.

6.- As the work is being carried out, the water and electricity supply companies are granted that infrastructure that is subject to maintenance and which must be granted compulsorily.

7.- In parallel, “The Owners’ Association of the El Hacho Development” continued to take upon itself the maintenance of the work of urbanisation of the sector, which involved the following tasks:

 

- Maintenance of the public garden areas.

 

- Cleaning and maintenance of road networks and urban furniture.

 

 

- Conservation and maintenance of public lighting.

 

- Replacement and maintenance of manholes/ utility vaults etc.

 

- Maintenance of septic tanks.

 

The centres of transformation and the drinking water supply networks are not mentioned since in 2002 they were transferred to the supply companies.

8.- At a General Meeting of the “Owners’ Association of the El Hacho Development” held in December 2002 with a quorum of 77 % it was unanimously agreed to dissolve the above-mentioned Association and to Create an Entidad Urbanística de Conservación so as to adapt the physical reality of the development to the current legal precepts in this regard (the case that the charge for urbanisation corresponds to the owners) (A copy of the above-mentioned minutes is available to anybody who requests it )

9.- In that month of December 2002, a very long and cumbersome proceeding was begun to carry out the incorporation which supposedly was to last for a few months and in that belief bills from the “Owners’ Association of the El Hacho Development” ceased to be produced as at that time the cash situation of the above-mentioned Association was optimal as the result of steps taken to recover debts from the historical non-payers.

10.- Nevertheless, that supposedly short proceeding of incorporation gradually extended in time and the economic situation is beginning to be unsustainable.

11.- In order to ease this situation, the different Mayors who have presided over the corporation together with their governing bodies have asked in writing for the promoters with interests in the area to pay their contribution in advance for the Entidad Urbanística de Conservación that might correspond to them in the future. (A copy of the circulars issued by the Mayors is available)

It is worth making absolutely clear that none of these contributions was made for provision of infrastructure but that they were used solely and exclusively to attend to costs of maintenance of the development, fundamentally salaries and wages of the employees of the development. As can be seen from the accounts of the above-mentioned Association and which is available to anybody who asks to see it.

12.- The above-mentioned and tortuous procedure for incorporation in which all of the political groups with representation in the Manilva Local Authority approved the various procedures necessary for the incorporation of the “EUC El Hacho” culminated with the holding of the constituent Assembly on 22^nd November 2006. (A copy of the administrative dossier of incorporation whose handling is the exclusive responsibility of the Manilva Local Authority is available to whoever may wish to see it).

13.- In the above-mentioned Assembly Charges, budgets and a protocol for the payment of contributions were approved, with only the necessary Registration of the EUC remaining which was constituted in the Registry of Entidades Urbanísticas Colaboradoras de Conservación, depending on the Provincial Town-Planning Commission of Malaga. (The application for registration has already been produced by the Manilva Local Authority)

14.- After the holding of the Constituent Assembly, a number of groups with opinions contrary to the incorporation of the Entidad have arisen which has led to the lodging of an appeal before the Contentious-Administrative Court of Malaga and which, in the normal course of distribution, is to be heard in Court number two of Ordinary Procedure 759/2007 and which, as is clear from the Writ dated 31^st October 2007, rejects the adoption of the precautionary measure requested and consisting of asking for the suspension of the definitive approval of “EUC El Hacho” (a copy of all the documentation related with this proceeding is available to whoever wishes to see it)

15.- The holding of the electoral process last May involved a logical and justified halt to the putting through of this matter of incorporation, taking into account that the new Council had to verify that the matter had been dealt with correctly.

16.- In this context, it remained to individually notify by recorded delivery the handling of the matter and the beginning of the attachment proceedings. The proclamation regarding the notification is at present made but not published and the proclamation regarding the beginning of the attachment proceedings has not been made.

17.- From the economic point of view, and taking into account the confusion created both by the incorporation in itself, by the holding of the election and by the existence of a platform which argues the illegality of the entire process of incorporation, only a ridiculous percentage has been paid, 25% to be exact.

For all these reasons it is worth emphasising that the consequences of the current economic situation are obvious, but above all they are very serious:

 

- The physical impossibility of attending to the tasks of maintenance.

 

- Neglecting the obligations that the Entidad has vis-à-vis its employees which means that the salaries and wages corresponding to the month of December and the extra payment for December are at present unpaid, and, which is even more serious, the payment trend of the residents is going to make it impossible to pay the next salaries and wages.

 

- There are no funds to attend to the payment of electricity supplies for public lighting and nor for the payments regarding the septic tanks.

 

- There is not even enough money to buy diesel fuel for the lawn-mowers.

 

- There is not enough money to replace the large number of manhole covers which are spoiled each day. There are many other matters that will not be mentioned now which represent the daily work of the employees of the Development.

 

For all of these reasons, I am bringing this unsustainable situation to the knowledge of residents, owners and the Council, but above all the consequences which might bring chaos to the infrastructure of the sector if this economic situation is not eased with the necessary urgency.

There are a number of solutions that occur to me:

1.- That the residents and owners of the sector should accept their obligation to pay this Entidad.

2.- That the Council, in the sphere of its powers, should bring the Patronato de Recaudación Ejecutivo of Estepona4 to the beginning of attachment proceedings with the necessary urgency, giving as much publicity as possible to the matter so that the residents are made aware of how chaotic the situation could become.

3.- That while the executive proceedings for attachment are taking place, a loan should be set up from a financial institution or from the Patronato de Recaudación itself.

 

¹ The incorporated body responsible for the maintenance, hygiene and decency of the development.

² Plan Parcial is the detailed plan for the development or estate.

³ General Plan of the uses to which the land in the borough may be put.

⁴ Office for payments to the Local Authority.

This message was last edited by slacey99 on 2/5/2008.

Having looked at the Minutes and the List of Constituents of El Hacho date 22nd November 2006, there is absolutely no mention of Duquesa Village despite our president Gerardo Caballero and also Jose Ros (RYF) both attending the meeting and representing a number of other Duquesa communities.

This is why the the inclusion of Duquesa Village is under question.

I am advised that legally it is individual communities that belong to El Hacho and incur the El Hacho liability (although bills will be sent to individual owners) and that is why the legal liability for payment is a contingent liability of the community and would need to be mentioned on the accounts when they are prepared.

Michael

I have Adobe files of the 22nd November minutes and members list. If anyone wants them send me a pm

 

This message was last edited by michael52 on 2/5/2008.

Michael, DV is part of El Hacho as the macro community is the land between the 2 small rivers that flow into the sea , one in Castillio and the other between Duquesa and Sabbi. It means The Hill and its obvious why. Everybody is in it as Individuals, from the restayarants and bars around the port to us all at the top of the hill.

I started a thread about this more than 6 months ago and advised that an opposition group had been formed to challenge the legality of the organisation. The group needed a certain number of memeberrs to join, i did and paid my €90 contribution to the fund to retain legal council.

everything Jan says is correct, RyF paid pur fees for the last 2 years out of the goodness of his heart ( ) but now its down to us. The area does need to maintained there is no doubt about that or the area will deteriorate to a 'sub-prime location' as was described in a Sunday Times article 3 weeks ago.  The question about its legality though does need addressing plus the wherabouts of a load of money developers, including RyF, deposited with the council for reparations after the developments are completed.

I will try and find out what happened to the last thread.

I hate to be pedantic or a grumpy old man (perish the thought) but the minutes of the meeting of 22nd November do not define the precise area to be treated as part of the El Hacho macro community. However if Duquesa Village and the shops are not in the original constitution documents for the macro community then legally they are not part of it which is why the outcome of the Court proceedings will be so important.

It must also be bourne in mind that RYF developments constitute the major part of El Hacho and the action group is concerned that the developer (RYF) is trying to get the residents to pay for the damage that has been caused to the infrastructure by him and the other developers. The maintenance of the area and the port is another matter entirely and should primarily be the responsibility of the Council - maybe its time for them to reassess the IBI's for the whole of the area.

Michael

This message was last edited by michael52 on 2/5/2008.

This message was last edited by michael52 on 2/5/2008.

Michael...i dont think its pedantic and its a good point. I suppose though that you could say it wasn't explicitly excluded either , it is just assumed. The people people involved in the action group will be able to answer that one.

 

 

Just a few questions......

Have monies paid to date to the El Hacho community been ring fenced for the intended purpose of maintaining the locality or have monies been spirited away elsewhere?

Are the developer(s) contributions to date just part of the original agreement with the local authority to allow them to build in the first place, in which case have they met their obligations on this score?

Are contributions intended to fund purely maintenance commitments or are they intended to fund new infrastructure in the locality?

If the intention is to include new infrastructure, then why should developments and businesses on the periphery be excluded from contributing when they may be benefactors in the overall scheme of things?

Michael is spot on when he says "maybe its time for them to reassess the IBI's for the whole of the area."........ but equally the original agreements reached with developers to provide funding to make good their damage to the locality should not be overlooked in the process.

Seems to me that ads is asking all the right questions and suggest that we all join (if not already ) the action group.

By the way another RYF development Coto Real on the otherside of the river also does not appear on the macro community listing, but is obviously going to benefit from any infrastructure enhancement.  

Agreed that all these questions should be asked - and indeed have been.  Coto Real, like Marina de la Duquesa and other large developments, is east of the river running down between DV and CR and outside the area designated for the El Hacho EUC.  ALL communities who border the designated area will benefit - as will tourists to the area - but there has to be a defined community/area for every macro community formed.  You will always have other developments/residents/communities on the borders of any council/macro community/county, etc., who will benefit from others' contriutions to their own area.  I initially felt the same, as in why should developments on the periphery benefit from our funding, but then where do you draw the line .....    Maybe, at some point, there will be another macro community formed for those developments east of the river - and we will all enjoy the benefits of that when we walk down the Sabinillas promenade!

Personally, paying less than a euro a day isn't really a problem, so long as it produces an acceptable environment in which to own property and enjoy that investment.  The only problem is, as I see it, is that the EUC should be totally legal and should be able to account for all contributions made to it, which at the moment doesn't seem to be the case.  That is the major issue, as far as I can see.  The EUC has alot to account for at the moment and should be totally transparent, which it obviously isn't right now!

Why the need for all these macro communities each with their own administrative overheads (and potential for corruption and non transparency) when a realistic IBI should suffice?

I have not been able to find any reference in the El Hacho papers to the area covered and certainly no restriction on which part of the hill, which apparently covers both sides of the river, is or is not included.

Seems we will all have to await the Court's rulings before we can know what if any liability we may have for 2008 and future years.

 

"There is not enough money to replace the large number of manhole covers which are spoiled each day. There are many other matters that will not be mentioned now which represent the daily work of the employees of the Development."

It's all crazy and the above comment was the last straw.

Why do these manholes get damaged so frequently?
The whole area has death traps all over the place and has done so for years !
I have a large collection of photos of these dangerous holes in the pavements.
You have to be very careful  on a dark night.
To me it looks like they were never built right/completed in the first place.

The Developers should pay to get all these things put right before we pay maintenance.