Legal interest is covered by bank guarantee. Buyers can still claim to SGR

 Many buyers from San Jose and Herrada del Tollo who got their deposits covered by a Guarantee from SGR accepted to recover the principal and sing a relinquishment agreement for the legal interest.

The art. 7th of the 57/68 Act establishes that the rights that the law establishes for the buyers cannot be relinquished. In addition, the artícle 1st states that the developer must give to the buyer a bank guarantee which covers principal plus LEGAL INTEREST.

Therefore, the right to get the legal interest paid is ruled by the law, so it cannot be relinquished. This means that any relinquishment document is against the law and void.

* EDITED - Against forum rules **

Best Regards,

Guadalupe Sánchez.

GM LEGAL EXPERTS

This message was last edited by Guadalupe. Lawyer on 30/03/2011.

This message was last edited by Guadalupe. Lawyer on 30/03/2011.

This message was last edited by Guadalupe. Lawyer on 30/03/2011.

This appears to be good consumer protection.

On another note however I noticed on your forum that you quoted the following:

"If you paid your funds to Trampolin by transfer or cheque, and you did not get a Bank Guarantee, do not worry, because you still can get your money plus interest back, by joining this claim. "

May I ask in principle how you propose to reclaim against a Bank if a cheque (as opposed to bank transfer of funds) was negligently used by the convenyanciing lawyer to transfer original deposited monies to a developer? Isn't it the case that by forwarding a cheque to the developer the purchaser has been compromised by the conveyancing lawyer as they have lost control of those monies at that point? How under these circumstances can you establish a link back to the Bank that you are hoping to place a claim against?

Ads

if your conveyancing lawyer for Trampolin Hills paid by cheque, it is possible to find out in which Developer's account the cheque was credited. You just need to contact your Bank and get a certificate about in which account (or Bank office, if details of the account cannot be provided) the cheque was paid. If the cheque was credited in an account opponed in La Caixa or Cajamar, you can bring an action against them then, because both had a "special" account openned, so were awared that money coming into Trampolin's accounts was from buyers to purchase properties, so they must have requested Trampolin to issue the guarantees.

** EDITED - Against forum rules **

Best Regards,

Guadalupe Sánchez

 Many thanks Guadalupe Lawyer.

I was just asking in principle and not referring to Trampolin Hills specifically.

So in general principle, if a cheque could be proven to have been ultimately credited to Bank linked to a developer where a special account was opened, then a claim against that Bank can be made. Is that correct?

What in the case however that no special account was opened or that this cheque had been credited elsewhere or that the original conveyancing lawyer refuses to provide the relevant banking information?

Dear Ads,

If there wasn't a "special" account, but there are evidences that the Bank was aware that the money credited into the "ordinary" account were exclusively deposits coming from buyers, Bank's liability can be claimed too, pursuant to art. 1.2, 57/68 Act.

But if the cheque was paid elsewhere, bank liability can't be claimed, unless a generic bank guarantee for the whole development was signed between the Bank and the builder.

If the cheque was given by the conveyancing lawyer to the developer, the information about where it was credited can be obtained straight from your Bank, so no matter if the lawyer wants to cooperate or not. 

Best Regards,

Guadalupe Sánchez. Lawyer

Thanks again.

A bit of confusion here I'm afraid as I'm referring to the situation where monies are given to a law firm and placed into a client account, and from there the depostied monies are transfered to a developer via a cheque. In this case, as I understand it, only the law firm can request that information from their Bank so an individual cannot establish the necessary details.

 How can you establish that a generic Bank guarantee for the whole development was signed between a Bank and builder? Where do you find this information?

Hi Ads

Yes, in the case you mention where the Lawyer accepted the off-plan deposit into their client deposit account and then forwarded their own cheque to the developer, it must be the Lawyer who contacts their Bank and obtains information into which of the developers accounts their cheque was paid.  The Lawyer should then pass this information to you on request.

If the Lawyer is unwilling to co-operate I would suggest that you take legal action against that Lawyer to force them to provide the requested information.

With regards to a Bank Guarantee for the whole development - your original Lawyer should have that information and it should be mentioned in the Contract/Sales Agreement.

Guadalupe - exactly correct regarding the legal interest on a Bank Guarantee:

Article 7 of LEY 57/68 states:  Los derechos que la presente Ley otorga a los cesionarios tendran el caracter de irrenunciables.

Which translates to:  The rights that the present Law grants to the grantees will be of an indisputable nature.

So the rights granted to the purchaser under LEY 57/68 are of a 'caracter de irrenunciables' - INALIENABLE/INDISPUTABLE CHARACTER.  The rights are so strong that they cannot be waived, even at the request of the purchaser.

Guadalupe, it is great to see another Lawyer fighting hard for the rights of the consumer according to LEY 57/68.

Keep up the good work!

Kind regards

Keith

 Thanks Keith, Maria, Guadalupe and all who are helping in this regard.

It still begs the plea, please can all good lawyers ensure that these abusive court  delays are addressed as a priority, as case wins have to be implemented for there to be true justice at the end of the day.

Ads

The Bank Guarantees in Spain petition does highlight the abusive court delays and is also addressed to:

Señor Francisco Caamaño Domínguez - Minister for Justice
Señor Don Carlos Dívar Blanco - President of CGPJ (General Council of the Judicial Power)
Señor Don Carlos Carnicer Díez - President of CGAE (General Council of Spanish Lawyers)

However, as we all know to our cost the systems in Spain are tediously slow and very much against the consumer.

Kind regards

Keith

 You are a star Keith! Many thanks.

Do you know when you plan to submit the petition?

Ads - I was hoping to get more than the 300 petitioners who have so far joined the petition.  However, these 300 have provided a huge amount of data - so it is not just a list of names, but hard facts.

The petition is 'open' in the fact that the petition text is viewable as a website to all those to whom it is addressed.  I am sure that some have already taken note of its existence.

However, I am currently compiling the data from the first 300 petitioners and will endeavor to have this task completed as soon as possible.

On 12 October 2010 I did include some of the petition text in my complaint to the Banco de España.  I wanted to 'test the waters'.  However it took them until 3 January 2011 to formally accept the complaint.  Since that date we have not had any further communication from them.  It is strange that when they write to us we, as the consumer, are given just 10 days to respond to avoid the complaint being cancelled.  However they are allowed in excess of 3 months to respond to the complaint.

This is just one of the examples of the Spanish system being totally against the consumer.  It is not a level playing field I am afraid.

It is a complete insult to all those affected for the Spanish Housing Minister - Señora Beatriz Corredor Sierra to say 'Come here calmly and trust in the system we have and the transparency we provide'

The system is totally unfair and there is absolutely no transparency.

Also José Blanco - the Spanish Minister of Development, when speaking about the International Roadshow to Promote Spain, said: 'We will take steps to reinforce the legal protection of people who buy a home in our country'.  He is keen to win back the confidence of potential investors.  I would suggest that he begins in this endeavor by addressing the corruption and abuse suffered by buyers who to their cost 'trusted in the Spanish system'.

Kind regards

Keith

 You have done a remarkable job Keith.

I was wondering if Suzanne's petitioners have provided evidence to your petition or if they might consider that this is a duplication of effort?

I personally do not consider it a duplication (I support both)  as your specific questions will provide indisputable hard evidence to prove that reform is essential if, as you say we are ever to trust the Spanish system and gain transparency.

As such I would encourage everyone who is concerned by the abusive delays no matter what their legal circumstance to support your petition with their individual comments and where appropriate hard evidence.