Innocent Brits to be evicted from their homes.

Post reply   Start new thread
:: New - Old :: Old - New

Pages: Previous | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | Next |

Forum home :: Latest threads :: Search forums
The Comments
01 Dec 2017 10:18 PM by ads Star rating. 4134 posts Send private message

So now we have the reality that FOL is a legal imperative for occupation of a property etc, but blind eyes have been turned by the authorities and energy and water companies alike to these facts, so all purchasers appear to have been compromised by a system that has "allowed" this scenario to occur from the outset, when this could have been resolved by making provision of FOL mandatory at point of purchase. 

Wouldn't mandatory provision going forward prevent all new purchasers from being exposed to these ongoing risks, and wouldn't the issuance of licences for these properties prove a civilised compromise given the local authorities lack of due diligence from the outset? If any party should be penalised or fined it should be the local authorities.....

Why is this not being reviewed at the highest level in Spain given the scale of this scenario, and what is the likelihood of this being resolved without further major impact on the justice system, already overstretched and under resourced?

But in terms of the eviction processes these should be halted as they too have been compromised by the authorities who retrospectively changed the status from residential to touristic  without informing the purchasers. 

What a fiasco.....

 


This message was last edited by ads on 01/12/2017.



Like 0      
01 Dec 2017 10:41 PM by briando55 Star rating in Yorkshire. 1982 posts Send private message

Ads.  

I fear the authorities and legal profession are happy to keep the gullible people without the correct documents. 

This being because it may feed the income of these organisations in the cases where ithere is any conflict or they choose to challenge.  



_______________________

Best wishes, Brian

 




Like 0      
01 Dec 2017 11:30 PM by ads Star rating. 4134 posts Send private message

Mmmmm......

There are some who are trying their best to expose uncomfortable realities in order to try and gain reform and greater accountability but when you're battling against the system it's extremely hard. We all know who those individuals are ;)

The only way forward in the interim is to hope that the judiciary will remain impartial fair and far more consistent in their rulings which has the potential to restore at least some faith in the system going forward. 

As we keep saying, time will tell.

Oh yes and be supportive of those innocents who are threatened with eviction....

 


This message was last edited by ads on 01/12/2017.



Like 0      
02 Dec 2017 12:56 AM by windtalker Star rating. 1950 posts Send private message

People like the one's in question ..were warned by the Residents association (CRA)  over a year back that Masa /Just Milano had called in the Liquidators and it was point less pursuing any compensation claims as the Developers    had multi million Euro Dept's ....so you must purchase your Escutura from the Liquidator's ASAP ...otherwise they will auction your property as an assets of the Bankrupt Developer this was a well known fact on Camposol ....being in business my self for over 30 year's I tryed to warn  the people next door to me how  business work's ...these people did not listen to me...in fact they told the people across the road that I was a know all ....their house went to auction approximately 4 months back   ..and was sold ..all they had to do to stop the auction was pay the outstanding amount of money to get the Escutura they point blank refused this was after living in the property not paying IBI for 10 years they said they had been sold a villa that said Touristic on the Escutura when it should have been Residential (nothing to do with a HC )no one on Camposol has a HC ....I don't know how much money they have spent on lawyers up to now...but in my opinion what they should have done was spend this money on the purchase of the Escutura and simply sold the property on to someone else ...property on Camposol sells quite quick ..and for good a good Price. Friends of ours.3 doors down did Listen to my advice and bought the Escutura even though it said Touristic on it... they are still living full time as residents in the property ..and have been doing so for the passed 12 years.

 


 


 


This message was last edited by windtalker on 02/12/2017.



Like 0      
02 Dec 2017 10:09 AM by mariadecastro Star rating in Algeciras (Cadiz). 9419 posts Send private message

mariadecastro´s avatar

In my opinion, that was not a solution but a short-term bad exit. 

Is it a solution to pay debts of the developer in an illegal development? They stayed at those " houses" but it is just a fact situation with no legality which consequently situates the asset out of the legal market.

All having paid money for those properties ( with or without deeds), can still considerate the possibility of asking banks for the refund of all paid plus legal interests, making use of great decisions of our Supreme Court which extended the application of law 57/68 to urban illegalities situations.

Who knows? This might be what the urbanisation needs for being placed quicker on the route for acquiring legal status. 

And you all will win. Even banks! 



_______________________

Maria L. de Castro, JD, MA

Lawyer

Director www.costaluzlawyers.es

El blog de Maria



Like 0      
02 Dec 2017 10:32 AM by briando55 Star rating in Yorkshire. 1982 posts Send private message

I understand and agree with that Maria, owning an asset without the full and correct title leaves it outside the legal framework and leaves all the 'owners' at risk.  

What has been a surprising discussion for me on the site has been the failure in regulations to ensure the purchaser is fully covered in their purchase, with the correct title.

And, the willingness of some (including our countrymen) to buy or sell and think, oh well that’s just the way it is over here, what can you do.   That makes themselves vulnerable and perpetuates the illegality. 

In the end great fees arise for some professionals and there may not be the 'will' to change things unless made to do so. 



_______________________

Best wishes, Brian

 




Like 1      
02 Dec 2017 11:55 AM by ads Star rating. 4134 posts Send private message

Agreed in theory, but the fact remains that full and fair justice is STILL dependent on recognition that the justice system requires adequate resourcing to tackle the onerous and compromising delays ( especially in those regions badly  affected). And this will only further exacerbate the justice system.

Plus it appears judicial specialisation is required to tackle inconsistent judicial rulings relating to award of interest and costs, which ironically have allowed Banks to flood the system with apppeals, subjecting claimants to become ever more dependent upon timely and supportive SC clarification in the interim. And the Banks play hardball in the interim challenging every possible loophole in the existing system.

The irony being that until SC clarification is achieved ( which appears to be taking many years) claimants in some regions and courts are NOT being awarded costs nor interest backdated to date of deposit, which is a significant loss of monies.

Until this compromising catch 22 scenario is properly tackled, the legal lottery will sadly remain, which hardly inspires confidence I'm afraid. And I say that with a heavy heart... 

We need all of the above uncomfortable realities tackled head on before this legal lottery that plays into the hands of the powerful banks is resolved. And that requires CONSISTENT, fair  and TIMELY judicial rulings always recognising and respecting established case law achieved during these lengthy interim periods.

Eradicate this compromising judicial catch 22 scenario, look for ways to prevent loopholes AT SOURCE,  and we will all hopefully benefit in the longer term.





Like 0      
02 Dec 2017 5:10 PM by baz1946 Star rating. 2327 posts Send private message

Before July 2008, it was not necessary to obtain a Certificate of Habitation to complete a sale. Sellers were not requested to present the CH to new owners. So, notaries, land registry officers, banks, lawyers, etc were not requesting the CH to complete the sales. Thus, this document was not obligatory before July 2008.

Why this document was not obligatory to complete sales? – Because, the aim of this document, as explained above, is to “connect” the property to water and electric for the first time, and, once connected, to “change” the existing contracts into the new owners name.

In fact, for RESALES, during decades, Spanish buyers and sellers have been connecting their properties to water and electric, and changing the supplying contracts without this document. Specially in rustic land areas, electric and water companies were not asking for  this document to change the supplying contracts.

So, NEW properties, and RESALES were bought and sold, and sales were completed at the notary office, and registered in the land registry office, without CH. Thus, builders were selling their new built houses to buyers without this document. Also, vendors (in resales) were selling their properties to buyers without.

In some areas, even supplying companies were not demanding this document to contract. In the majority of the cases, buyers could contract the water and electric by a phone call, or changing the name of the contracts into their names, and the CH was never been requested. Even today this is possible in determinate areas.

The problem arrived with NEW properties, like new apartments, urbanizations, etc, and for the explosion of the Spanish crisis.  As explained, before July 2008 was not necessary for builders to provide to their buyers the CH to complete their sales. So, it was really common to sale properties “on construction”. For example, in an urbanization with 500 houses, the builder could sale by blocks of, for example, 100 houses, once they were completed, without to wait to complete ALL the urbanization infrastructure.

The CH is the last document obtained after the finalization of the construction works of the building. So, as before 2008 it was not necessary to present CH on completion, builders were building and selling their properties before they were “completely finished”.  With this scenario, buyers they were buying their new properties ready to be used, but, sometimes without to “complete” other phases or blocks from the urbanization, or some urbanization infrastructure.  Buyers were connected to supplies with “building supply” eventually, with the hope that the builder, once completed the rest of the urbanization, or the rest of the urbanization works, would then provide them with “mains” supply.

This was the scenario before the Spanish real estate “crisis” in the years 2008-2011.

But, with the crisis, it was repeated in the market that builders entered in bankcrupcy suddenly, and their companies were in big financial troubles because banks were closing . Also, the market stopped, and big urbanizations were suddenly unsold. So,  builders were blocked with a dramatic position in which they could not finish the urbanizations or construction already started,  because they could not find enough credit to do it from banks. In addition to this, they could not get private finance from their sales because the market was stopped, and they could not sale their properties.

As result of this scenario, buyers who previously had completed their sales and bought units from the builder from urbanizations not completed, they found theirselves on “building supply” utility contracts, and they saw how the builder simply disappeared, leaving the urbanization complex unfinished. As the global works of the urbanization were not complete, the CH was impossible to be obtain it, and buyers, and families, were left with “building supply” for long time.

This problem did not happen in RESALES where, with very few exceptions, sellers and buyers of OLD properties, which were really connected to water and electric, could obtain the cnahge of the contracts into the new owners name, after the sale, without any kind of problems. Thus, it was really common in the market NOT to apply to the CH on resales (urban and rustic), if the properties were already connected to water and electric, and when the CH was not needed to change the utility into the new owner’s name.

But, in July 2008, a new law came into force for all the Spanish territory. One of the intentions of this law was to avoid situation of buyers of New properties in urbanziations, complex, buildings, etc. This law said that builders cannot complete the sales of NEW properties without the CH. And ordered to notaries, land registry offices, etc, to request the CH to complete the sales of new properties. But this law, was forcing the notaries and the land registry officers to ask for the CH to complete purchases ONLY FOR NEW PROPERTIES.

In instance, this law did not say anything regarding RESALES.  So, as consequence, to complete a sale of a resale, it was not necessary to provide this document.

This law helped to avoid future problems with buyers buying NEW properties, but, as they did not mention anything in relation to RESALES, creating a big confusion in the market.

As explained above, buyers and sellers were selling, and reselling their properties, without the CH. Resale buyers were changing their water and electric bills without any kind of problems, and the notary never asked for the CH in their transactions.

The confusion was created when, after the approval of this law,  durign the years 2009-2010, buyers started to ask to vendors to provide this document.  Sellers were requested to provide the CH, but, when they consulted the notary office to confirm if this document was obligatory to be supplied,  they were confirmed that it was not requested by the law. So, notaries, land registry offices, etc, only required the CH for NEW sales, and not for RESALES.





Like 2      
03 Dec 2017 1:22 AM by briando55 Star rating in Yorkshire. 1982 posts Send private message

That seems to be at odds with what Maria has said Baz.    

If the lawyers are confused, god help the general public eh......!



_______________________

Best wishes, Brian

 




Like 0      
03 Dec 2017 9:44 AM by ads Star rating. 4134 posts Send private message

Baz, if the licence is only required for utilities  then why have the authorities not issued licences to those sector properties who now have these utilities? Wouldn't this solve the problem going forward? Was the issuance of licences not required to be done by sectors?

I wonder might there be other planning issues not being reognised here?

 


This message was last edited by ads on 03/12/2017.



Like 0      
03 Dec 2017 12:23 PM by briando55 Star rating in Yorkshire. 1982 posts Send private message

It should be simple really Ads.

when a property is purchased there should be a list of mandatory documents provided to the prospective buyer, and these should be listed in the conveyance procedure.  If the required docs are different for new builds and existing houses, then that should be declared and checked at the time.   

The solicitor should check these are there and check they are valid and they are for the property being purchased.  That’s part of a real conveyance.  

If someone sells or buys a property without permissions in place, they may have problems in the future, including demolition or eviction etc.   To put these things in place later must cost a fortune in solicitors fees, when they should really have done the job in the first place.  It will also cause mayhem with your life and with trying to move on.   



_______________________

Best wishes, Brian

 




Like 0      
03 Dec 2017 1:35 PM by baz1946 Star rating. 2327 posts Send private message

That seems to be at odds with what Maria has said Baz.    

If the lawyers are confused, god help the general public eh......!

Yes, Brian, a whole lot more then confusing to say the least.

Yes, ads the whole system seems to be on its head, as well when you look these things up you get a thousand different answers to one question.

I also read that to get an HC for your house when you don't have one it can take anything from 10 to 12 months, it went on to say form filling, architect visits, payments, bit much if you only find this out at the point of exchange. 





Like 0      
03 Dec 2017 4:59 PM by windtalker Star rating. 1950 posts Send private message

I don't understand ...why they just don't pick up the Escutura even if it does say Touristic on it... at least they would have somewhere to call home ...for 50 weeks out of a year...a Touristic property on Camposol has to be either to be rented out or vacated for 2 weeks per year... it can be any 2 week's ...it is crazy to lose. your home and €104,000 because of this.... As I said in my previous posts I don't think they have the money to make  final payment .

 


This message was last edited by windtalker on 03/12/2017.



Like 0      
03 Dec 2017 5:44 PM by briando55 Star rating in Yorkshire. 1982 posts Send private message

Yes ok windtalker.  

But it still begs the question why aren’t these things part of the sale documents.   Surely that’s the time to make sure they are given over?



_______________________

Best wishes, Brian

 




Like 0      
03 Dec 2017 6:24 PM by acer Star rating. 1539 posts Send private message

Windtaker, I think there's a misunderstand somewhere. 

Bob & Patricia no longer own the property as their contract to purchase was declared void.  The judge ruled that the money they paid was to be refunded to them by the builder.  As part of this ruling the ownership of the property reverted to the builder.

Then, before the money was repaid to them the builder went bust.  But this meant that Bob & Patricia were without any money or any property.  The latter became part of the assets that were acquired by the liquidatator appointed to deal with the builder's estate.

So the unfortunate couple really are up a certain creek, without a paddle.



_______________________
Don't argue with an idiot, he will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.



Like 0      
03 Dec 2017 6:48 PM by windtalker Star rating. 1950 posts Send private message

Why on earth ..did they let the builder take ownership without first receiving a payment on return... You would not do this with a car or anything else ...who on earth was advising these people.





Like 0      
03 Dec 2017 7:39 PM by briando55 Star rating in Yorkshire. 1982 posts Send private message

This is getting even stranger?

The people being evicted, not only did they fail to be given a habitation certificate, but they also didnt have a valid contract with the builder.

Both of these failures were not fully identified until the builder was taken to court, by the (supposed) owners of the property, and the court decided the best way forward was to give the property ownership back to the builder, before any money had been refunded to the (supposed) owners.

Have I dreamt this up just now or is this the current salient facts!



_______________________

Best wishes, Brian

 




Like 0      
03 Dec 2017 11:14 PM by ads Star rating. 4134 posts Send private message

A possible sequence of events could be like this??? 

The case was presumably won for breach of contract against the developer on the grounds of change of status (without informing  the purchasers but maybe also on grounds of non provision of LFO?) which  led to a successful judicial ruling for canx of contract and award for return of monies paid ( and costs ?) And following that ruling the developer agreed ( or was he made to?) that the purchaser remain in the property until such time as the monies were returned as per the judicial ruling (presumably these monies were paid into developer accounts?)

Enforcement for return of monies paid as per the successful judicial ruling would then have been applied for , but this was never achieved due to compromising delays in the justice system, (or was there some other collusion in the mix???)

And in this lengthy interim period the developer goes into administration ( asset stripped in the interim, who knows?) 

The Bank who financed the development then step in and become preferential creditors following  developer administration ( with the purchasers classed as non preferential  creditors....way down the pecking order, even though they have an outstanding enforcement order against the developer).

So the Bank take subsequent "ownership" of the asset and go to auction of the property evicting the claimants in that process, leaving them without a home or monies as per the judicial ruling.

But now here's where purchaser Bank Guarantee rights might come to the fore, (in light of developer insolvency , proven contract cancellation, outstanding enforcement  action never achieved, etc) , as the bank who should have ( or already has?) provided a bank guarantee for the property from the outset of monies paid (according to Ley57/68) becomes the ultimate guarantor and legally responsible for safeguarding monies in the event of developer breach.

Presumably this is what Keith and Maria are currently reviewing?

But since this is so similar to circumstances that all too many offplan purchasers experienced in the early days with regard to developer insolvency and successful rulings recognising breach of contract (bear in mind this was in the days prior to case law being established), all we can hope for is that the clarified inalienable rights according to Ley 57/68 will now hold strong for this couple.

Once again time will tell. But the outstanding question is what happens in the interim period whilst fighting for these rights... How does the right to remain in the property until such time as monies are returned now legally stand... Did this agreement to remain in the property in effect act as part of their continued guaranteed rights?

What this goes to prove however is how a conveyancing system in total disarray without mandatory controls in place from the outset, has the potential to cause the most distressing of circumstances for those subjected to all manner of malpractice and non compliance....

 





Like 1      
03 Dec 2017 11:25 PM by briando55 Star rating in Yorkshire. 1982 posts Send private message

Very good sequential assessment of this as a possibility Ads.    

I will digest this overnight and would love to comment tomorrow if that’s ok by readers!    



_______________________

Best wishes, Brian

 




Like 0      
04 Dec 2017 11:56 AM by ads Star rating. 4134 posts Send private message

I wonder if this couple are eligible for legal aid if they have little monies left to fight for their rights, given the extraordinary efforts to effect justice against such a background of circumstances outside of their control.





Like 0      

Pages: Previous | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | Next |

Post reply    Start new thread


Previous Threads

Spain-based British professional scammers, stay alert - 0 posts
Spanish Legal System - 33 posts
Spanish license renewal - 7 posts
Rental - 2 posts
car transfer - 2 posts
ryno stan - 0 posts
Almeria villages / recommendations - 74 posts
Caixa Bank Seldom Answering Phone or Emails - 5 posts
Denuncia - 8 posts
Spanish Reg in the UK - 8 posts
passport pics - 5 posts
No Community fees? urbanization? - 8 posts
Radio Control Aircraft club - 0 posts
Are we just dreamers..... - 11 posts
introductions - 1 posts
TAX REFUND - 0 posts
Hi All - 0 posts
Zahara de los Atunes - 1 posts
Committee members voting at the AGM - 19 posts
Rip off charges by Caixa Bank !! - 30 posts
Land in Valencia - 9 posts
Tracing a taxi driver - 3 posts
Event organisation in Costa Blanca. - 0 posts
NON RESIDENT TAX - 31 posts
bank - 1 posts

Number of posts in this thread: 80

DISCLAIMER:  All opinions posted on these message boards are the opinion solely of the poster and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Eye on Spain, its servants or agents.


1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
Our Weekly Email Digest
Name:
Email:


This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse you are agreeing to our use of cookies. More information here. x