Spanish Legal Reclaim

Has anyone used the company 'Spanish Legal Reclaim' to reclaim lost property deposit's from spanish banks?

This company has offered their services to me on a no win no fee basis and want 35% of any funds reclaimed.

Just looking for references for this company or any similar companys.

Cheers

Trig

Hi Trig seeing no one has replied.

Only my opinion, no evidence or facts.

'Spanish Legal Reclaim' too early to tell, new kids on the block. Seems to be a Spanish company. I suspect they are a risky outfit like the rest only interested in themselves and not you the meal ticket. They may well say ‘no win no fee’ but how long before they start asking for court and admin fees?. I would not let them have any access to any money awarded by a court (if possible). 35% might turn into 100% once they get their hands on all the money and suddenly go bankrupt.

These types of companies are risky and generally have zero morals. Are they registered and regulated by the Spanish justice authority (if that is worth anything).

Hi Spanish legal reclaims have told us that they cannot help as the evidence that is needed to prove where the money went is not available as it is being used in the criminal courts against Palmera, so they have essentially told us thanks but no thanks. 

Has anyone had any better success elsewhere? 

Gainsborough

Are the conveyancing law firm refusing to provide this evidence of transfer of deposited monies to developer account?

There have been instances of good law firms acting on clients’ behalf in this regard and approaching the relevant Bar Association to assist, where this approach has been successful in eventually gaining the necessary evidence from the conveyancing law firm in question..... 

Pamera´s cases are difficult and laborious but, of course they are possible if Palmera´s Bank provides information on where money went once leaving Palmera´s account

Hello ads

‘Are the conveyancing law firm refusing to provide this evidence of transfer of deposited monies to developer account?’

That is an interesting statement. For what possible purpose would they do that other than they have kept (stolen) the money for themselves?.

I think that Spanish reclaim are saying that because we only have documentation of sending the money to Palmeras solicitor even though we have confirmation that it got there from palmera, we don't have any evidence of it going into an a/c of palmera and they can't obtain that proof because all palmera's stuff is in the criminal courts

I think that Spanish reclaim are saying that because we only have documentation of sending the money to Palmeras solicitor even though we have confirmation that it got there from palmera, we don't have any evidence of it going into an a/c of palmera and they can't obtain that proof because all palmera's stuff is in the criminal courts

Also, before this crop of no win no fee firms our own solicitor had written to Palmeras solicitor and he says he can't remember because it was so long ago!

Are SLR suggesting that the Bank who acted as guarantor for the development is not ultimately responsible for adequately administering and safeguarding all deposited monies, as required by law with all due inalienable rights protected? Or are they not prepared to spend time and energy to follow through the detail relating to the "passage of monies" between developer and Bank?

Bottom line is that Banks are surely ultimately responsible to ensure they set in place all necessary and effective administrative/safeguarding mechanisms between developer and Bank such that all offplan deposits were directed to special accounts and fully protected according to Bank Guarantee law......

It's so important that claimants use expert specialised law firms who are fully aware and conversant with the myriad of Bank's ploys, and committed to fighting for claimants' rights, those who remain fully aware of Banks' continuing attempts to deny their legal responsibilities going forward.

Not to mention the need to remain aware and appropriately respond to Banks endeavours to play the system of delays to their advantage, as they continue to flood the system with appeals at every opportunity, thus delaying SC doctrine so necessary to eliminate them exploiting any outstanding "elements of doubt" which can impact award of costs and correctly backdated interest.

Risks remain so long as some judges issue "inconsistent rulings" (as opposed to the majority who thankfully recognise Bank's responsibilities according to clarified law), and prefer to wait until such time as FULL SC doctrine is achieved (i.e. two SC rulings on the exact same point of law), with regard to the award of backdating of interest to date of deposit. This can also impact the award of costs so long as any continuing element of doubt exists.

For this reason it becomes essential that the SC now provide timely doctrine on this issue of backdating of interest, and that all "inconsistent rulings"  and Banks' challenges of this nature are fully understood and monitored by good law firms going forward. 

Kavanagh,

In the early days some law firms were obstructive to making provision of financial details required to proceed against the Banks for a whole host of reasons.... some remained in "ignorance" of Bank Guarantee law at that time suggesting it was impossible to achieve return of monies, some were concerned that their own lack of due diligence could be exposed, some were intent on purely delaying provision of details since the client had moved to those more specialised law firms, some were not independent of developers etc and had conflict of interests, so it was not so black and white as you might think.