Costa Luz Lawyers

Just a brief testimonial note following the case Cost Luz lawyers have handled for us after we lost our deposit in Spain in 2005.

I wanted to express our sincere thanks to Keith/María and their team for winning our case in what turned out to be as quickly and comprehensively as possible.

They won our deposit and interest in the first instance courts and oversaw the return of our money.  Although we are not in receipt of the costs from the case yet, we were awarded the costs and expect these to be returned over the next few months.

A very 'well done' to these lawyers and a recommendation from us to anyone requiring legal services in Spain, to make sure this firm of lawyers are in your process.   These are very professional people with the knowledge you are likely to require.

Good luck to anyone needing such services, the better the people you use the luckier you will be!!

Well done Briando and Keith, Maria and all the Costaluz team. :)

A honor!

You have every reason to be proud Maria,  but I'm sure you can appreciate that there are many who are not so fortunate with lawsuit timings, having submitted lawsuits against Banks in the days when  case law and Supreme Court rulings were being significantly compromised by major delays, and these "innocents" are being subjected to the most onerous of circumstances.

Having been subjected to compromising delays already, the delays impacting case law and SC clarification are now ONCE AGAIN making their mark, placing clients at  continuing risk,  as without supportive SC doctrine ( 2 identical rulings by the SC on the same point of law), clients are once again being left vulnerable to inconsistent rulings, leaving them in this instance unable to attain rightful return of interest backdated to date of deposit ( the point at which Banks compliance with law commenced).

And ironically, even if clients win their appeal rulings for interest correctly backdated based upon SC clarification ( not doctrine) it appears that the Banks are disrespecting the first SC ruling by continuing to challenge judicial rulings at every opportunity, until such time as doctrine is finally achieved.

This in the interim is also having a knock on effect on the award of costs ( which I understand is also being challenged by the Banks).

So the question remains....how can this possibly be allowed to continue in full knowledge that lack of timely SC clarification is a REPEAT of circumstance that previously compromised doctrine from being achieved for several years with regard to Banks' legal obligations relating to return of principal monies according to law ( monies that should have been adequately safeguarded from outset of deposit) ?

In light of this, and with your strong and determined commitment to fight for purchasers rights, could you please advise if there is any possibility that this repeat of circumstance can be brought to the URGENT attention of the SC, with a view to gaining timely clarification, without which the risk of further  miscarriage of justice increases significantly. 

As things currently stand the Banks have little incentive to comply with legal rulings in the interim, preferring to appeal and benefit from the knock-on impact of yet further delays (that in turn are so significant in some regions as to compromise the rule of law). 

Also, do you have any further knowledge of progress with regard to SC rulings to act as supportive doctrine in this regard.

Apologies for this rant, which I hope and trust you will recognise as a heartfelt plea for justice to prevail to make Banks fully accountable for their compromising negligences.

Many thanks Maria and sincere congratulations on Costa Luz's successes to date.

Dear Ads:

 Provintial Appeal Courts are unanimously imposing all the period of interests ( + delay interests of Insurance Law if the guarantee instrument was an inssurance) plus legal costs.

This, together with solving matters that get to the Supreme Court as per schedules and possibilities is the route to be taken.

I am pasting below a forum post from last October

05 Oct 2017 14:49 by mariadecastro  in Algeciras (Cadiz). 8892 posts

Dear Ads:

I understand that Marín Castán, president of the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court is asking the Ministry of Justice to reform the Civil Cassation Appeal procedure so it gets easier to get to and also to create mechanisms by which unification of doctrine in matters constantly arising as the result of speed of our times, are more timely and more uniformly performed and implemented along Spain

Thank you for your reply Maria.

Can I ask how long to date claimants have been waiting to achieve SC doctrine with regard to clarification of interest and how this is currently being made "more timely"?

Is the SC somehow giving priority to attain a timely ruling that leads to doctrine in this regard? 

Because so long as Banks continue to challenge and remain in denial of their administrative and financial obligations and significant failings FROM THE OUTSET of deposit,  the more important it becomes  to ensure that they are made fully accountable.

Especially when you factor in the increasing number of appeals at Provincial or SC level in the lengthy interim periods.

With respect, rhetoric in principle from those who may have good intent at SC level, is far different than swift effective action, especially when the impacts impinge upon the rule of law, legal certainty and respect of inalienable rights, let alone the stress and not insignificant costs born from prolonged litigation for those innocent claimants who have been striving and pioneering for justice for well over a decade.

If swift action is not taken to address clarification and persuance of doctrine with regard to interest, then this will be rightly perceived as powerful financial institutions gaining advantage, by unfairly benefitting from delays brought about by their continuing "denials"  and bad faith re their obligations to adhere to law intended to safeguard inalienable rights.

Ads: Please have answers below in bold green ( same text as your email): 

Thank you for your reply Maria.

Can I ask how long to date claimants have been waiting to achieve SC doctrine with regard to clarification of interest and how this is currently being made "more timely"? Supreme Court decissions on back dating of interests to the time payments were made to developers accounts are these, so far:

STS 13/09/2013

STS 09/03/2016

STS 17/03/2016

STS 24/10/2016

STS 21/12/2016

STS 23/11/2017

So doctrine is already there. Some banks are trying to find exceptions to this, especially if a claim was made against a developer first and then against the bank, due to the financial insolvency of the developer. They are not being successful as Appeal Courts are interpreting that clients did not have their guarantees from the outset,  developers went bankrupt, clients had to be submitted to long and costly bankruptcy proceedings, cannot be against the recognition of full interests period.

Is the SC somehow giving priority to attain a timely ruling that leads to doctrine in this regard? I do not think so. They follow a chronological order, with some exceptions, like this last summer when they gave preference to the decision on IRPH mortgage index. This is an index included in hundreds of thousands of mortgages in Spain.

Because so long as Banks continue to challenge and remain in denial of their administrative and financial obligations and significant failings FROM THE OUTSET of deposit,  the more important it becomes  to ensure that they are made fully accountable.

Especially when you factor in the increasing number of appeals at Provincial or SC level in the lengthy interim periods.

With respect, rhetoric in principle from those who may have good intent at SC level, is far different than swift effective action, especially when the impacts impinge upon the rule of law, legal certainty and respect of inalienable rights, let alone the stress and not insignificant costs born from prolonged litigation for those innocent claimants who have been striving and pioneering for justice for well over a decade.

If swift action is not taken to address clarification and persuance of doctrine with regard to interest, then this will be rightly perceived as powerful financial institutions gaining advantage, by unfairly benefitting from delays brought about by their continuing "denials"  and bad faith re their obligations to adhere to law intended to safeguard inalienable rights.

Thank you Maria.

How can Banks therefore be allowed to continue to challenge Supreme Court doctrine with regard to interest, if full interest periods have already been clarified and assessed at SC level? 

Is it the case that SC doctrine re full interest backdated to date of deposit has not been achieved as a whole ( complete principle ) with regard to Ley 57/68, but only in very individual specific circumstances ( piecemeal ) which the Banks are still free to exploit?

Isn't this piecemeal approach exactly what claimants have already been exposed to with regard to gaining doctrine associated with return of principal during this last decade and beyond?

Surely Ley 57/68 should have been fully clarified, both in terms of return of principal and full interest backdated to date of deposit by now (some 13 years and beyond), instead of STILL being subjected to endless challenges by the Banks? 

We all deserve better Maria in this ongoing lengthy litigious process that Banks are being allowed to continually exploit.

Hi

I do say thank you to Maria for winning our case approx 18 months ago. However, i am sorry to say that i feel we have been forgotten. We have not received anything back as yet because of SC and a bank. Unfortunately i would be more than happy to issue praise but feel i cannot at this present time say its been great or as informative as it could have been. 

Thank you so much Ads for being human and for being able to post things that are relevant which is something i am not great at.

All the best. 

Chrissie1

All, sadly, appear to be being compromised by the Banks, good lawyers and clients alike. The ongoing actions by the Banks are undoubtedly putting the Spanish Justice system under immense strain to the point where it is challenging the rule of law.

This is why it’s essential for the Supreme Court to now prioritorise, in order to gain full and timely accountability for all those caught up in what can only be described as a vicious circle of compromising circumstance, but also to establish a trusted and effective reporting and monitoring mechanism ( trusted by lawyers and clients alike), fit for purpose, to highlight large scale patterns of compromising behaviour from wherever it eminates, in order to eradicate abuse, malpractice and bad intent, in as fair and timely a manner as possible.

Good lawyers and clients should have a common sense of purpose in this regard if progress is to be made to the longer term benefit of all. 

But in the interim it’s essential that innocent claimants should not be scapegoated or feel to have been placed way down the pecking order in the eyes of the Spanish Justice system. Neither is it right that good law firms have what appears to be little influence in the process of reform, and be compromised or exploited by those whose aim is to gain unfair benefit from an under-resourced system of justice, that has the potential to harm their ability to adequately and effectively defend their clients. 

That’s exactly why I say we all deserve better.

 But good legal teams need to have a far louder voice and a more proactive organised approach in that objective to achieve timely SC rulings if the Banks are to be made accountable for their patterns of manipulative undermining of the rule of law and disrespect for more “consistent”  judicial rulings and SC clarification with regard to Ley 57/68  that have already taken years to achieve. A law that was ironically intended to protect from the outset.

We can act within the realm of the cases we are dealing with. We do communicate long delays to the General Council of Judicial Power.

How are the GCJP dealing with these communications ?.... are they resulting in more timely rulings because sadly claimants don’t appear to see improvements in this regard, but just the opposite Maria.

Court and judicial delays are increasing at an alarming rate, and in that process claimants are being further compromised by delays to achieving ongoing Supreme Court doctrine upon which the judiciary and all outstanding claimants depend..

What appears unforgivable however is that delays in some instances appear  to have been “used” to suggest bad intent on the claimants part..... to imply late exercise of rights, when in reality this has been born from delays outside of the claimant’ s control, and purposefully exacerbated by Banks manipulative ploys to flood the justice system with appeals, in full knowledge of the impact this would have on delaying SC doctrine. 

They appear to have demonstrated callous disrespect of SC rulings in the lead up to Supreme Court doctrine, remaining in denial of their administrative and financial obligations to safeguard monies from the outset, whilst demonstrating complete  disregard for claimants inalienable rights.

If anyone is demonstrating bad intent in this whole sorry saga, it appears to be the Banks, and it’s time that these circumstances were exposed and effectively dealt with by provision of TIMELY supportive SC doctrine. 

All too many claimants are now struggling to achieve justice to make Banks FULLY accountable for their negligences. 

Having finally being made accountable for return of principal monies (via SC doctrine that has taken YEARS to achieve), the Banks are now shifting their attention to a repeat of this manipulative ploy to delay SC doctrine with regard to rightful award of interest backdated to date of deposit. 

This would mean in stark reality that Banks would not be made accountable for all the years they have failed to adhere to their financial and administrative responsibilities. They would not be made accountable for the devastating impact of such abuse and negligence from the outset. 

This is exactly why it is so imperative that timely SC doctrine is now achieved with regard to the backdating of legal interest, and that the GCJP play their part in this scenario, by swiftly and effectively feeding back these communications of long delays that you speak of Maria, with a view to resolving this major problem once and for all.

Just to accentuate the need for this to be resolved, I note that Banks are similarly compromising the system of justice with regard to mortgage floor claimants..... “Lenders are being as unhelpful as they can, and are contributing to this collapse. Banks are reported to have rejected some 650,000 applications from clients who decided to claim directly with their banks ( thus leaving little option but to flood the court system with their claims). In other  cases, lenders have proposed token refunds, or offered to cancel abusive clauses by private agreement, and replace them with high fixed-interest rates just as bad as the abusive floor clause rate.” 

I have to ask the question therefore, is it any wonder why claimants are so disillusioned with the status quo, how so many feel compromised by this sorry saga of ongoing events. 

But more concerning, how bad does this have to become before the powers that be truly recognise how Banks through their manipulative ploys are abusing and significantly compromising the system of justice in Spain? 

Thank you for your continuing efforts to communicate with the CGJP Maria and all your supportive educative endeavours, but I hope you understand the need to now expose these uncomfortable realities in the hope that others ( clients and lawyers alike) will comprehend the gravity of what is occurring here, and how if this remains unresolved, has the potential to bring about not only a collapse of the court system but will significantly impact trust in the ability to gain justice against powerful financial institutions in Spain, which will harm us all in the longer term.

How can clients fighting for their inalienable rights under LEY 57/68 dependent upon SC doctrine going forward with regard to correctly backdated interest,  gain justice in such an environment where the Banks are being so “ effectively obstructive”? Are you and other good law firms able to bring these facts to the attention of the CGJP and place this on record?

Dear Ads:

I am happy to forward your concerns to the General Council of Judicial power. Please write a statement which I will certainly forward to them

Thanks for forwarding Maria.

So much appreciated.

All, sadly, appear to be being compromised by the Banks, good lawyers and clients alike. The ongoing actions by the Banks are undoubtedly putting the Spanish Justice system under immense strain to the point where it is challenging the rule of law.

This is why it’s essential for the Supreme Court to now prioritorise, in order to gain full and timely accountability for all those caught up in what can only be described as a vicious circle of compromising circumstance, but also to establish a trusted and effective reporting and monitoring mechanism ( trusted by lawyers and clients alike), fit for purpose, to highlight large scale patterns of compromising behaviour from wherever it eminates, in order to eradicate abuse, malpractice and bad intent, in as fair and timely a manner as possible.

Good lawyers and clients should have a common sense of purpose in this regard if progress is to be made to the longer term benefit of all. 

But in the interim it’s essential that innocent claimants should not be scapegoated or feel to have been placed way down the pecking order in the eyes of the Spanish Justice system. Neither is it right that good law firms have what appears to be little influence in the process of reform, and be compromised or exploited by those whose aim is to gain unfair benefit from an under-resourced system of justice, that has the potential to harm their ability to adequately and effectively defend their clients. 

That’s exactly why I say we all deserve better.

 But good legal teams need to have a far louder voice and a more proactive organised approach in that objective to achieve timely SC rulings if the Banks are to be made accountable for their patterns of manipulative undermining of the rule of law and disrespect for more “consistent”  judicial rulings and SC clarification with regard to Ley 57/68  that have already taken years to achieve. A law that was ironically intended to protect from the outset.

Ads, it's a noble sentiment but these kinds of regulations only exist in civilised countries, and Spain, unfortunately, isn't one of them.

I am sure the General Council of Judicial Power will take good consideration of facts described by ads in her recent approach to them.

It would be interesting to know if the CGJP have the power to direct the judiciary to remain alert to instances of bad faith on the part of the Banks who pay scant regard to SC clarifications, and whether they can encourage greater consistency in their rulings with regard to correct backdating of interest and Banks’ liabilities,,until such tiime as explicit SC doctrine is achieved?

But also it begs the question are law firms now retaining evidence to submit to the CGJP when patterns of judicial inconsistencies occur, or evidence to highlight acts of bad faith and manipulative obstructive ploys that Banks are employing in their attempts to elude their liabilities?

The spanish law system is only ever going to be as good as the court system and lets face it its prehistoric. We have certainly had to jump through every hoop going to find out ley 57/68 was not worth the paper it was written on.  Everything to protect us failed in the first instance and I believe delays and mistakes have been made by everyone involved which has made this journey even harder to bear.

Chrissie1

I am sure Law Firms allege bad faith by banks every time they detect it. Some Appeal Courts are also explicitly declaring it when imposing legal costs to Banks.

Thank you Maria.

It should not be a legal lottery as to which appeal courts explicitly declare it when imposing costs, as there should be far greater consistency in this regard if Banks are to be made fully accountable for their negligences spanning so many years and for trust in the system to be restored.

So long as these inconsistencies remain, there will always be the opportunity for Banks to keep appealing by making reference to other rulings that are not recognising bad intent and manipulative ploys.

Explicit clarification/doctrine on interest and costs is essential and until this is achieved all too many claimants will continue to be significantly compromised.

It's surely time that good law firms became more proactive in this regard to feedback these facts and injustices on behalf of their clients, until such time as swift doctrine is achieved.

Why are law firms not collectively recognising that they have a duty and common purpose in this regard and should play their part in calling for swift doctrine? It pains me to say so, but until they do so, the temptation ( rightly or wrongly) is to conclude that they are somehow benefactors in this scenario where proliferation of appeals both at High Court and Supreme Court level leaves innocent claimants at the mercy of  costly ongoing litigation. And the Banks appear to be playing and exploiting the system with this fully in mind.