BANK GUARANTEES PETITION - LEY 57/68

Norman,

Scroll down this thread to the 14th December 12.05 and you will see Rosegreen's detailed posting.

 Ads: Law Firm will be liable for all the costs the Judge considers are a product of the lack fo dilgence. If the Indemnity INsurance covers partially, then the rest will have to be covered by the Law Firm it self.

Many thanks Maria.

So in the cases where a cheque has been the transfer mechanism from law firm to developer, it is essential then and in the law firm's interest to comply and identify the Banking details where those monies were actually encashed, to prove that there has been no conflict of interest or negligence? Otherwise it would infer that they have not demonstrated due diligence? Is that correct?

 I would say it is fully correct according to what Law 57/68 establishes

Dear Ads,

I had imagined that if Keith or yourself were compiling a database of detailed successes it would be fully complete with every detail included.

Regards

Norman

Let me get this straight. Some lawyers have only 10k professional indemnity insurance  - which is unlikely to pay out if they suspect dishonesty or collusion - in most countries professional indemnity covers you for things unfortunately going wrong, not for you turning out to be a crook.

So one gets a judgement collectable against the law-firm itself. Which is likely to be like any other small company in a rented office with a few desks and chairs......I doubt they could say "sorry" and write a cheque for 50k or whatever.....far more likely to go bust I should think.

And if the law firm goes bust (or asset strips for that matter) as GUYT suggests, what then?

Who becomes ultimately accountable for this?.......I suggest it is the state/government who have failed in their duty to ensure that the rule of law has been applied in a fair, independent and equitable manner, that they have compromised innocent consumers through their lack of banking regulation and regulation of legal professionals, and demonstrated a complete disregard for the welfare of innocent consumers (foreign nationals and nationals alike) by allowing their justice system to become unworkable, corrupted, unregulated and totally under-resourced.

We need to send out a strong statement and place on record that so long as these abusive delays and lack of regulation continues within a justice system that is failing in its duty to ensure that the rule of law is able to proceed within reasonable timeframes, and ensure that consumer protection is in place to provide recompense as per successful legal judgements, then we will hold the government responsible!

When we read of such things as Faro stating from first hand experience 

" But if the govt really want to do something they should regulate the whole area - developers/promoters/estate agents - because don't forget half the problems exist because of agents. Tighten up on the use of the word solicitor/lawyer/abogada. The number of cowboys operating and all claiming to have a legal background or legally trained and they have absolutely nothing only certificates printed off the internet. Lawyers should not be allowed trade through basic SL structures. But the Spanish law societies are unable or unwilling to even regulate their members. Being a member of a Spanish colegio makes no difference to how you conduct business. No Spanish lawyers fears the weak disciplinary committee. To me they are an absolute joke."

then we need to shout this message from all quarters and make sure that MEP's are told the whole story, not just about Bank Guarantees but about the whole Spanish justice system and it's inability to enact justice.

This message was last edited by ads on 18/02/2011.

I am very sure that petitions as Keith´s and Suzanne´s will make an impact. No doubt.

I understand that Maria, but in the interim we are all left vulnerable, without any guarantee that we will receive any recompense as per our legal judgements.  Unless in the immediate future a fair compensation structure is defined to make provision for all of us caught up in this disgraceful state of affairs it will come too late for many,  and we should not be the generation prepared to sit back and allow this to happen.

An interim compensation fund is the very least that we should be demanding.

Keith

Will you have to amend your petition to allow for these instances of law firm negligency within the evidence gathering exercise?

ads

I fear you are right. I'm so sick of well meant words like 'the tide is turning'  or 'they will have to listen'. Those of us who should have had 'real' justice long ago just see more delay, more excuses for failure to compensate, and more positive sounding words with no real substance to back them up?. The fantastic work done by Suzie and Keith and others should have been enough?. The evidence is there, but if those dealing with it are all part of the deception, corruption, lies,  (whatever you want to call it?), then it's hard to see them acting on behalf of those clearly in the right?

We have to get through to someone with a sense of fair play, but who and where are they?

With respect Goodstich, we are not talking about "fair play", we are talking about a system of justice that has no time constraints in place to ensure the actual application of law.

It is a flawed system that denies us our rights for successful judgements to be applied in a timely fashion. There will be no justice so long as all our outstanding successful judgements, preliminary enforcements, etc etc are blocked, delayed, manipulated and appeals remain unresolved for YEARS (whether this be against a developer, bank , law firm, whoever).

ads

no problem, perhaps I worded that badly?, but I think it amounts to much the same thing. What I'm trying to say is that before change is likely we need someone or some body of people to see what we are calling for as common sense and  right. How the hell to do that I have no idea?. At the moment we seem to be in the crazy position of having to take our cases of clearly established wrong doing like court delays and lack of BG's etc, through the long and often hopeless justice system, (that allowed crooks to cheat us in the first place) and that's often a lottery depending on the judge's mood, opinion and quite possibly other confict of interest factors involved?? 

As you say, the whole damned system is flawed.  it's just not working for the victims for the reasons you've stated , but also acts as though those we are up against have as good a case against us as we have against them?. Until those clearly wronged go to court with odds clearly in their favour due to the undeniable evidence, then I feel the whole justice system remains a farce, as everthing we have gone through is not being recognised as giving us an advantage over those so clearly in the wrong. 

It's like having to take a developer to court after paying a deposit and nothing being built!.  What sort of system is it that allows that non build and then turns round and says you have to spend years suing that developer. Where's the sense and where the hell is the regulation that puts off the crooks at all levels, and ensures application of law in a resonable time constraint?.

My name is Charles Knapper and I am a partner in a firm of solicitors in Plymouth who recently took Alberici to court and obtained substantial damages and costs against both Alberici and Robert Plane for my client.  The fight goes on because Quinn appear to have declined the claims against her indemnity insurance policy but will not give a reason why. 

I was also instrumental in bringing the matter to the attention of the Solicitors Regulation Authority and as a resuit she was struck off on 3rd February 2012.  I have a copy of the determination from the Disciplinery Tribunal in a pdf format but is is rather long.

Quinn have recently indicated that they were waiting for the publication of the reasons as to why she was struck off.  Of course those reasons have been publised so they should now make a decision.  I suspect they will still decline the claim leaving the option of a Third Party (Rights Against insurers) Act claim against Quinn or the Solicitors' Compensation Fund.

Indemnity actions against lawyers who did not provide Bank Guarantees to clients are also starting.

The two most effective ways for you to obtain a quick refund, once you have your contract cancelled, are at this moment:

-Actions against Banks for inffirngement of their obligations out of Law 57/68

- Actions against Lawyers ( their Insurance Companies) for lack of diligence/ possible criminal actions when dealing with property conveyancing during the Real Estate/ Finantial boom. Law firms involved are well identified and are just very few of the total. The very good nees is that Bar Associations are now more active in exercising discipline against these law Firms

It's good to hear that accountability is finally starting to make its mark,  but a quick refund for the client Maria?

To all good legal professionals I plead. PLEASE don't lose sight of the bottom line to all of this, i.e. please strive for reform to ensure a means by which clients can receive fair and timely recompense, (no matter which legal route is employed). We need a legal system that not only ensures accountability but is also devoid of abusive delays which sadly play into the hands of those intent on obstructing the rule of law.

Of course Anne. I can feel and understand your frustration.

We are determined now to communicate all the obstructions we have had in the past to the mediation services of the Bar Association of  the corresponding provinces.

I am positive about the General Council of Lawyers and the Ministry of Justice being now well determined for these problems to be identified and sanctioned.

No reputable lawyer should be promising 'a quick refund' in such cases.  It's totally wrong, misleading, & professionally negligent.

There are also strict time constraints in place regarding 'Actions against Banks' & 'Actions against Lawyers'.

It is being very quick: 4 months in one case and 3 months in another one from lawsuit being registered in Courts to judge passing the decission after the bank settling on refund.

Anyone wanted to know, please  email me so I can place them in contact with the favoured clients of us.

The other key point is "after the contract is cancelled". That seems to be a lengthy process, as I've been waiting over 3 years for the court to do this.

In an article in the Costa News it was recently reported that Murcia region judges backed two rulings... according to the judges, article 3 of Law 57/68 states that customers were entitled to have bank warrants refunded, regardless of whether the sales contract had been cancelled or not. "What articles 1 and 3 of Law 57/1968 demand is that certain things occur such as the building works not being started or completed for some reason" notes the court sentence. "Cancelling the contract is therefore irrelevant and the customers are entitled to demand payment from the guarantor." The judges backed their sentence on similar and previous sentences of several regional courts and the High Court. The Bank must refund the money, plus the legal interest and pay the trial costs........

http://www.costa-news.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=9384&Itemid=122

Presumably this case related to purchasers having BG's in place?

So, the question remains Maria, how does this ruling affect those who have been denied Bank Guarantees for their deposited monies? Do they still have to gain cancellation of the contract or not? I'm sure it would help others if this could be clarified.

Many thanks (in anticipation)!

This message was last edited by ads on 05/04/2012.

This message was last edited by ads on 05/04/2012.