Innocent Brits to be evicted from their homes.

This was reported in "Murcia Today" recently and is an appalling situation and an example of Spanish law at it's absolute worst.  The complacency within the Spanish legal system is breathtaking.

The full article : https://murciatoday.com/camposol-couple-face-loss-of-their-home-as-justo-y-manoli-bankruptcy-reaches-auction-stage_172380-a.html

The facts are that an elderly British couple, Bob & Patricia bought a property on Camposol for €104,000 then subsequently discovered it had "turistico" status and theoretically could not be occupied all year round as a normal residential dwelling.  This was never made known to them at the time of the purchase.

So they took the developer to court under a claim for breach of contract and won after a lengthy court battle over several years.  The purchase contract was annulled and they were awarded damages equating to the full amount they paid, plus interest etc. 

However, shortly afterwards, the developer, Masa/Justo y Manoli, went into liquidation without paying a penny to them.   Therefore Bob & Patricia's property became an asset of the Liquidator of Masa and is now to be sold at auction, even though Bob & Patricia are still living there are they've not received any of the compensation awarded!

Sadly Bob & Patricia are only one couple of five who through no fault of their own are to be made homeless.  The Liquidator is declining to discuss the situation or even say when the auction is to take place.  As a creditor of the liquidated company Bob & Patricia are unlikely to receive any money as they are a long way down the pecking order.

This seems truly outrageous and for me deserves a far higher profile than has yet occurred.

There seems to be an increasing tendancy for people to use PM's rather than post on EOS, which goes against the purpose of the forum.  Here is one received just now:

<< If the court order has not been complied with how can the developer/Liquidator have any right to the assets of Bob & Patricia?.>>

The court awarded that the the sale of the property to Bob & Patricia was invalid due to the breach of contract.  So the court made the award that they should have their money back.  But in Spain court judgments are not usually enforceable quickly. 

Additionally there is an extraordinarily relaxed treatment of directors who put their companies into liquidation to avoid paying their debtors.  There is often no real penalty, so the system is open to abuse.

Keith Rule mentioned to me this situation recently. We have been thinking about it.

There is case Law for cases of urban illegalities where Law 57/68 can be applied, so these people have an action against the Bank which received their off-plan deposits.

In the meantime, I would encourage them to defend their stay at the house as, as far as I have understood, Courts granted to them the right to stay there till refund was obtained from developer ( which, as being a Law 57/68 case, can be interpreted " by developer or by liable related institutions".

We will be pleased to help them if they need

Maria, many thanks for your post.

I do not know Bob & Patricia, but I will ensure they receive your kind offer of help.

Back about 12 months the Camposol Residents Association warned the people that had not picked up their Escutura ...that they would face losing the property that they lived in ...the Masa liquidators also gave these people plenty of notice to pay the outstanding money that the owed to Masa  liquidators otherwise they would sell the property at auction.... This would have happened to me if I had not paid the outstanding amount that I owed to get the Escutura ...my pig headed people next door refuse to and got repo.d

Windtalker:

Do you have a residential escritura now? For the price agreed in the contract?

No I do not have a residential escutura..my escutura say's Touristic ... apparently so we are told this means that you must vacate the property for 2 weeks per year only ...I know 2 people personally that have had their properties reposed by the Masa liquidation company ... apparently the liquidator's sent out letters warning people on Camposol to pick up the escutura and pay the outstanding amount or your property will be reposed ....what I cannot understand is why Masa aloud people to move in to a property without paying in full in the first place... apparently the liquidator's have said you should not be living in a property that you have not paid in full for....these people have been living illegally in the properties and not paying IBI the majority of them have been living IBI free for up to 15 years.The outstanding amount I paid for the Escutura was only €10,000 .I paid this 10 years back.…..I have owned my Villa for 10 years and also been paying IBI from the time I picked up the Escutura.These people like myself new this would happen ...why did they not pick up the Escutura and then take the Touristic issue to court.personally I don't think it makes any difference on Camposol if your property is classed as Touristic or Residential ...l can't see the local council nocking on 4,500 doors the see who is living full time or not....the amount of IBI is the same for both Touristic and Residential....the Mazorron Council made a official statement approximately 2 year's back to the people of Camposol ..through the residents association that they are not in the business of throwing people out of their properties.

Were any of these compromised by non provision of first occupation licence or habitation licence from outset of purchase?

Does this play any part in this scenario relating to breach?

From what I have read in that MurciaToday article, they are allowed to stay in the property till  Justo y Manoli refunds. As this is never going to happen....

It all seems a right royal mess to me.  This includes the fact that some dwellings have this touristico limitation - there must surely be more to it than just limiting occupation to 50 weeks a year.

Windtalker I do think you are being harsh on Bob & Patricia, what you say is largely being wise after the event.  In principle if you are missold you should be entitled to seek re-dress, which they did and the court found in their favour.  It is not their fault that the local system allowed the developer to cheat on the debt.

Personally I would not believe a word that is said by the current Mazarron Town Council.  The current mayor gains her support by being "anti-foreigner" a bit of a Nigel Farage, but not so transparent.

Acer that is it plain and simple ..to comply with the Turistca status the said property must be rented out for atleast 2 weeks out of the 52 week's in 10 years of ownership I have only used my Villa for personal use I have never rented it out ...as I said in my previous post I have had a Villa with a pool  that I had built and the construction of 1.8 MTR walls / pavement lowered and various foot paths and I have all the appropriate licences for extra work stamped by the council ...I also have all the necessary paperwork  that goes with the construction of the building ...including a certificate of completion of works ... what I don't have is license of first occupation no one on Camposol has a occupation license and yet approximately 4,500 properties have electricity/water/rubbish collection and pay IBI apparently .... legally the utility companies or the council cannot supply any of these services without a license of first occupation ..I suppose you could say this is SPAIN or it just Mazarron council.

I agree it's all a bit farcical, but I do believe that Murcia has a far more relaxed stance on Habitation certicates than the other regions.  That may because they have so many without Habitation certicates they have to be, but I don't really know.

They seemed to go through a particularly crazy period during the property boom, but I gather that new dwellings are still being built and occupied without Habitation certificates on Mazarron Country Club!   I bought a second hand property in the area and when I asked the solicitor his very clear response was "you don't need one".  Being a non-trusting type I asked the notary at the completion process and she confirmed this also.

I know this subject has been to & forth for many years, but I'm none the wiser.  It seems to be a subject which is open to interpretation.  The theory is one thing, practice is another!

But despite your comments I do feel very sorry for Bob & Patricia.  They had paid for their property and I can understand not to dip their hands in their pockets too quickly when faced with the Liquidators demand.  They are pensioners and not everyone can find €25,000 too quickly either.

" what I don't have is license of first occupation no one on Camposol has a occupation license and yet ......."

I thought that without legal habitation licences in place you cannot legally "occupy" the property (as opposed to being allowed to have water and electricity???). How can a conveyancing system not have procedures in place to prevent such abuse at point of purchase? How can you have a system where energy and water provision is made available to what appears as a development without legal compliance to urban planning laws?

How can blind eyes be turned by local authorities, notaries and conveyancers alike, to a developer that attempted to sell properties that appears never to have been legally compliant with planning laws?

Is this not a classic case of corruption and non compliance, with innocents used as scapegoats in that process... the consequence being that repossessions are then allowed to proceed at worst (as in this case), or risks associated with illegal occupation could yet be realised at any time in the future?

So given all of the above many questions arise from this.

Why haven't the authorities provided licences in the lengthy interim period to all those complying with IBI payments etc, so as to protect innocents caught up in this licencing fiasco?

Might it be that they themselves (Town Halls) would be heavily fined by the regional authorities in that process of retrospective provision of licences if they did not follow the rules associated with urban planning from the outset?

This has always been a crazy scenario where blind eyes to urban illegalities have occurred on such a wide scale.

Has there been no rational interim agreement made between the regional and local authority given the large numbers affected at Camposol and the fact that purchasers have been paying their IBI, and where applicable have taken action to gain necessary paperwork for ongoing upgrade works, etc.?

If these properties are not legally compliant to be occupied, how can the system thereafter request payment for escutura or paperwork for ongoing upgrades, which implies that all is legal and above board?

This doesn't make any sense, and at worst appears to demonstrate how corruption in Spain is sadly continuing to compromise those "scapegoats" caught up in its complex web.

So sad and well done Acer for highlighting what appears a totally unjust eviction process, no matter how many cruelly endeavour to place the blame anywhere other than a system with significant loopholes that have left all too many open to abuse from the outset by all those intent and complicit with what appears as corrupt malpractice.

Thanks for yours Ads.

I do not have anything to compare them with, but it seems that Mazarron Council is a law unto themselves..  They may argue in their defence that they are merely incompetent.  But how they could allow Camposol, which I believe now extends to over 3,000 houses to be extended without any real control or Hab Certs issued just beggars belief. 

The fact that the mayor at the time was indicted for fraud may be a clue.  

As I understand the position there's been a stream of meetings between the local Residents Association and the current mayoress and a few gestures, but no real change.  She has a reputation of sounding sympathetic but doing nothing, particularly where "foreigners" are involved.

But despite all that the place seems to thrive, it's a good community and properties are regularly sold, albeit at knock down prices.

Surly the people in question ..new they had to make a final payment ...the figure of €25,000 for the escutura and final payment this seems fair ...so is it just a case that they don't have the money ...as this payment would be still be required if it was Residential or Touristic Escutura.

25000 for an escutura and final payment on a property that had no legal right to occupy it let alone not being informed of turistico status?

This message was last edited by ads on 29/11/2017.

Not only that they cannot legally occupy it but they cannot rent it out, use it as a guarantee of any loan or sell it. It values nothing in the legal traffic

Again: Supreme Court has provided for the use of law 57/68 in these situations

M

Adds we are going round in circles ..Camposol has approximately 4,500 properties on the site ..none of these properties including my one have a habitation cert ...this does not stop people asking up to €350,000 and more for a Neptuno Deluxe with pool on a 600 MTR plot ..have a look at the estate agent's on Camposol ..whatever people say about the place ..it still remains very popular with buyers...so these people that have not made the final payment and picked up the Escutura have no excuse... it certainly did not bother them not having a habitation cert over the past 10 years or so why would it bother them now ...I still dont understand why they are living in a property that they did not pay in full for ...when I bought my villa 10 years back ..I had to pay Masa in full ..this payment included the Escutura that I got 6 weeks later from my lawyer with both my wife and myself named on the deeds ...I am trying not to come across as insensitive as possible but it is hard for me to do so as I know of many that purposely did not pick up the Escutura to avoid paying IBI this was the norm on Camposol.before Masa called in the receivers.

Well said Maria.

Just so sad that they have to proceed with yet more litigation to gain justice, which sounds identical to the scenario that claimants were exposed to in the early years associated with Bank Guarantees and Ley 57/68 when developer claims were so compromised by court delays, lack of timely enforcement, lack of case law etc.which then  led to subsequent claims against the Banks who are still fighting tooth and nail against their responsibilities as ultimate guarantors.

All the more reason for judges to review the whole scenario when making their rulings if justice and a law intended to protect from the outset is to be fully respected.

Windtalker

You seem to be in denial of the fact that these properties on Camposol have " no legal value in the legal traffic" as Maria identified, which is a risk too far for those who wished to make the developer accountable for their legal malpractice. Also do not lose sight of the significant court delays that have compromised innocent claimants in the lengthy interim periods. Even faced with these uncomfortable realities it does seem harsh that you are still suggesting that these purchasers should have ploughed even more money into a property so legally compromised on so many levels including not being informed of turistico status.

This whole scenario appears a legal quagmire all brought about by corrupt elements whose intent were certainly not honourable so surely they had every right to fight for justice didn't they?

This message was last edited by ads on 29/11/2017

Marie .where does it state in Spanish Law ....that you cannot live in a Turistca property ....my under standing of properties with a Turistca Licence in place is that you can rent the property if you wish to tourist...apparently without a Turistca License in place ...you cannot rent out you're property as a holiday rental  in Spain ...this Spanish law is all over the internet....I cannot find anything.... on the internet that says you cannot live in a Turistica property .