Question for the legals

I purchased an apartment off plan at Almanzora Country club from parador and built by Huma mediterrano.

The place was never built. I managed to get my money back but not my deposit. If in the future someone builds on that site using the same plans would I still have a claim to my apartment or would they need to refund my money?

Is there any way to get my deposit back?

Thanks

dd

 So... your contract was actually  cancelled? That is the question. 

Maria

Not actually sure. Fusters were acting for me and i had 2 Bank Guarantees which eventually paid out minus Fusters costs but Fusters still were unable to get my deposit back.

Shortly after this Huma stopped paying back monies to customers who had purchased property from them.

I do know if my contract was cancelled or not but the apartment should have been built and delivered in 2007/8.

dd

Dear Diverdan.

If you paid the deposits to same Bank acccount as the rest of the money, the Guarantoor bank needs to refund your deposits to you too.

Best regards,

MAria

Maria

I paid deposit direct to Huma when I reserved the plot on the advise of the agent which was Parador. I paid this by visa card and i have tried to recover via visa and the ombusman but without success as the total purchase price for the apartment was in excess of £33,000 so section 75 of the act does not apply. That was the ruling from the ombusman.

I then paid 2 installments to Huma via Fusters which appear to have been deposited in 2 differant banks as my BG were differant.

I do not know where the deposit was banked.

Any further thoughts?

dd

Dear Diverdan:

For a better understanding of your case, I would appreciate if you could please email me to: web@costaluzlawyers.es

Best regards,

MAria

Maria

Will do. Thanks

dd

Just found this on another site & thought it might be of interest to you.

The Newspaper Diario de Almeria  reports that criminal proceedings have been brought against various persons associated with the Almanzora Country Club. (http://www.elalmeria.es/article/provincia/825118/mas/mil/propietarios/viviendas/una/urbanizacion/podrian/perder/su/casa.html). In summary......

The Prosecutor has brought charges of Planning Crimes as stipulated in article 319.2 of the Penal Code against  Alfonso García Gabarrón, manager of Easur, S.L.; Antonio Subiela Hernández, ex manage de Huma Mediterráneo, S.L.; Carlos Parras Martínez, of Ferrovial Agromán; Juan José Parrilla Cánovas, ex President of the Confederación Hidrográfica del Segura y ex Councilor of the Comunidad Autónoma de Murcia; and against the architects Diego García Sánchez, Enrique Domingo Pérez, José Francisco Bernal Alarcón, Trinitario Garcerán.

On the other hand, the prosecutor also alleges that the following entities are responsible; Easur, S.L., registered landowner and promoter; Huma Mediterráneo, S.L., as promoter; y a Ferrovial Agromán, S.A., as constructor. In his report the Prosecutor outlines a crime involving the construction of 300 houses between the months of April and October 2005 on 'suelo no urbanizable', without a building license, with 1,794 planned for the first phase in the area know as Llanos de Jordana, Cuevas del Almanzora....... The prosecutor seeks one year in prison, fines and disqualification for those accused as well as the demolition of the properties at the expense of those persons and entities convicted......

The case is being heard in Penal Court Number 1 in Almeria (Procedimiento Abreviado 248/09 )

The article goes on to say that affected owners may be unaware of their right to take part in these proceedings.

Our organisation strongly recommend that those impacted by this case take legal advice and take part in these proceedings. The existence of criminal proceedings strengthens any civil proceedings in which you may already be involved. At the very least you will be better informed.

This is of interest to those who have lost their deposits with Huma.

There is a group action being taken against them on a no win no fee arrangement. The leaders of this group have been very successful with other small group actions against developers, banks etc.. There has to be a limited number in the group. The absence of bank guarantees is not a problem. If you would like to learn more please PM me.

This is not a scam or another waste of time and money. You will see from my previous postings that I am fighting to get our money back for everyone.

With no win no fee what have you got to lose?

Regards,

Rambi.

 Good luck and please keep us posted on developments!

Cheers,

Maria

Rambi - Who is offering a 'no win no fee' service?

Rambi, if you could keep your posts to one thread that would be good

Thanks

Justin

Sorry Justin,

I tried several threads because I'm not sure which one is the best one to be on.

Sorry if I have broken some restriction. It won't happen again.

Hi Keith and Maria,

As I have said to Faro, this approach can only work for small groups and it has its restrictions. I have offered to act as a go between to process the applicants. By doing this unpaid work I have managed to get a considerable reduction of their normal fee.

I consider that a number of successful small group actions will provide a better chance for the thousands of others by taking the wall down one brick at a time. I'm sure that this will make things a lot easier for Maria and those other sympathetic lawyers to eventually bring the whole wall down. There are many who feel that at the moment there is little hope, including those who have won their court actions but are still without their money.

I will of course keep you informed of the successes, and failures (if any). But a no win no fee deal has got to be good for those who are involved. It is early days yet and a huge number of applicants would tend to kill the 'Golden Goose'. I hope you know I am committed to trying to help as many as I can but my part in this is only very small.

Regards,

Rambi.

Rambi:

I wish you and related lawyers all the success!! Of course I do!! The more battling this fight, the better.

Why?

Because if we get to have banks being declared as liable for not protecting deposits accordong to provision 1segundo of Law 57/68 or as the recent Burgos Court decission has established, for not issuing the corresponding Guarantees to every of the depositers, we will be bringing the off-plan business in Spain to full legal safety. It is not an easy fight, so the more the merrier!

Please keep us informed!

Maria