SARCO

04 Jul 2008 1:06 PM

brianmags

Adosado



I've made 226 posts

Send private message to brianmags

Hi Guys 
           this is from Annas site last night Muppet ask about deposits

Question for Anna re deposits
Yesterday at 18:59:23

Hi Anna.
Hoping you can clarify situation regarding deposit monies.
You stated on Antonio update thread deposits were thought to be in seperate account but Antonio was seeking confirmation.
You then stated on the key ready thread at a later date the monies were in a seperate account.
Can i assume you have had confirmation through Antonio as this obiously makes for good news if it has been confirmed.
Looking forward to your reply.
Regards Ken.

you picked the short straw then???

Yes Antonio confirmed that the owners (ie buyers for Herrada del Tollo only - you wil need to make this clear when you post on eye on spain) have their money in a separate bank account. There is 36,000 euros missing (thought to have been spent on construction and this is th element which is being further clarified / confirmed. I expect an update from Antonio today which I will post)
 
For info. I dont mind posting but clients of Antonios can and will make direct contact with him and those that have chosen lawyers via other groups would be better placed to take advice from their own counsel as to not do so and rely on others would be unwise. How a claim gets handled by a particular lawyer through ths process will not necessarily apply across the board at all and will only apply to those he/she represents. Owners therefore need to make sure they are pushing their own lawyer for independent information and questioning next steps etc.
 
hence my comments about quality not price!
 
Hope this helps ken
 
Anna

So it seems that if you purchased with Herrada del Tollo our monies are safe but we are still in the dark those who are not. but It might bee good news about the Build at SADM as they seem to have done things properly when it comes to Jumillia
regards Brianmags
R4 556



The meetings that SARC attended and are reported upon the SARC website have given some cause for deep thought as to outcomes for purchasers at SADM.
Several key points have been noted that impact upon the decisions to be made regarding whether to continue with the purchase or to stay as a creditor and try to regain the money paid.
It can be seen clearly in the report that the deposits, although auditable and appropriately accountable are not all sitting in a ring fenced client account. This is information was given with some discomfort by SJ/HDT but we needed to know the truth regarding the position of the deposits. When we attended the meeting we were not sure either way regarding the existence of a client account, as there had been two mutually contradicting postings on the EOS forum. We sought to clarify this and in doing so found that only a small proportion of the funds are kept in an account linked to bank guarantees.
Therefore, we are very concerned that if purchasers decide to try to get their deposits back that several factors need to be considered:
􀀢 Only a small proportion of clients money is in a clearly identified account
􀀢 Money can only come from the company trading out of difficulty or through liquidation of the company.
􀀢 If agreement can be made with creditors regarding debts the company can carry on trading.
􀀢 Liquidation of the company would take time and in the current economic climate not realise intrinsic value of assets.
􀀢 Staff, Government, Court/Administrators, Banks come before purchasers in line of payment.
􀀢 Any interest or compensation claim would come at the end of the line of payouts and as such is highly unlikely.
Taking these points into account we cannot see how it can benefit any purchasers to go down the route of trying to get back their money. We understand the wish to protect your investment in your property/ies but believe that going down the legal route will have small return, cost money and have lots of stress. As of yet no one has been able to give a good reason how it is beneficial to try to get your money back!
If on the other hand we support the continuation of SADM and we take up the offer to continue to purchase we can have, although it may have been delayed, our property. This is a much clearer and by far a better outcome for most if not all of SADM purchasers. It has been made clear to us that SADM is a legal development; the licences are there, the water is there, and that the location is desirable and not part of the coastal property bubble.
It would therefore, seem prudent for all purchasers to actively seek to get SADM built and ensure that liquidation of the company does not occur. We may not be happy with the situation that we find our selves in caused, primarily by the credit crunch and banks, but we can try to ensure that our money is safe by getting SADM built.
With regard to solicitors it is essential to realise that if you decide to continue with your purchase the legal fees should be less and thus there could be a conflict of interests. Think very carefully about what you want and what is best for you, not your legal representative who is getting paid. If you do decide to continue with your (the purchase of your property) property, it would be a good idea to ask about a reduction in your legal costs, as you will not be going through a protracted legal procedure. Why for example pay 10% of your deposit if you are not pursuing a claim through the Courts?
23 July 2008 SARC Admin.