Localidad

Does anyone know what Localidad means at the bottom of an application form? Especially if one has already filled in adress details? Many thanks.

It simply means, locality, town or place where the forms are signed and submitted.

locality location

When submitting the application form please ask and then let us all know why it is there.

It is standard practice, maybe a law, is in spain that one is required to show the town you are in when you SIGN a report, application etc   It is not the place where the form or application is submitted

Maybe should be a box for 'ropa' so you can say what clothes your wearing when you sign it too  

I can’t resist a pop at stupid beurocracy.  

Just because one does not understand something, probably means one is not qualified to say IT is stupid

I have just received this from a lawyer practising in Spain

“ My understanding is that it is evidence that the person signing was personally in that place on that date. If ever a problem arose (eg resulting from the person signing involved in a theft/fraud) thereafter re: authenticity, then the named person supposedly signing could or may need to prove with additional evidence, that they were never in that location. What surprises me is that occasionally institutions only insert the location and never the actual time of signing ie, 10.30am ! This , I think should most certainly be inserted at the time of signing. For additional security, the signed document should also be witnessed by the institution at the time of signing. It really is all about trying to obviate fraud. “

That’s great John, you provide both an explanation of why it’s wanted and why it’s stupid, both at the same time.

on the basis of that lawyers statement, the best thing to do is to sign a form every day (maybe hourly) to show where you are at all times, to obviate any possibility of being fraudulent.  Perhaps if your on a train travelling through the country everyone can get off at every station to have a card stamped, because just buying a ticket may not be enough.

Does anyone really think it’s one step ahead of a fraudster to give them an extra little box to lie into, and then use as evidence that they couldn’t have been anywhere else?

you could still use the clothes thing, and say I was wearing a yellow jumper when I signed it, the murderer or fraudster was reported as wearing a green one, so it couldn’t have been me.   I think that lawyer has played too much cluedo pal  

On balance, I don’t understand it, and it’s still stupid!!!

I have my suspicions but I cannot say for sure why you do not understand it

Perhaps your not sure because you don’t know where I am when I’m writing this post, or what I’m wearing.  

Or perhaps you don’t understand it yourself, more than likely. 

When you write a French cheque the locality where it is written is always required for similar legal purposes. Most requirements have a legal basis just because someone doesn’t understand them does not mean they are stupid.

Bureaucracy does sometimes make sense, but sadly not very often

The location where signed could, in some circumstances, be relevant re jurisdiction.  If signed say in U.K. it may not be not within the jurisdiction of the Spanish court and thus not subject to Spanish law etc.    

This message was last edited by johnzx on 02/06/2018.

I think we are mixing up not understanding something, with not understanding the relevance of something.

It would be infant school level to state someone doesn’t understand something written in plain English, which seemed to be the opening comment delivered by John. 

The relevance of writing where you signed something (especially in the context of alleviating fraud) is pretty hard to understand and grasp.   Bureaucracy making a demand that you carry out an act of signature of where you are, implies that must be trusted, and a claim it is to alleviate fraudulent activity is pretty stupid   

So all in all, it’s hard to understand and stupid when you sit back and think about it, but if it is part of a blind act of bureaucratic request, then maybe some people can try and justify it.   The original poster asked why they have to do it, my answer is it’s a bureaucrat demand without real meaning and is pretty stupid, so the definitive answer of why you have to do it would be?

please don’t say it’s to combat fraud because it is so easily open to fraud it’s not even sensible, is it?

Lets stick to reality

As I isaid ‘ it is standard practice, maybe a law, in spain that one is required to show the town you are in when you SIGN a report, application etc  ‘

From Mike’s post It would seem France too have a similar practiced 

It’s about legal juristisdiction if something goes wrong. The locality of the act nails it. If you troll through European legal jurisdiction laws you will likely  find the answer.

Most law is by nature written and designed by bureaucrats. Our lives depend on it.

Great idea John.  Let’s stick to reality. 

The poster asked why you have to do it.    

Mickey may have a point that it’s a local legal jurisdiction, but then mentions its likely to be statute in EU law, in which case it would be required in the UK too. Any local jurisdictions would be applicable to the place the form is submitted, not filled in   

John and his lawyer contributor says it obviates fraud and that even the time and a counter signature would be better to add.  This doesn’t obviate fraud in the slightest unless you can come up with a convincing answer that backs this up.  

I say it’s bureaucrats nonsense and doesn’t provide a high level of factual information to anyone.  

There is the case m'lud.   I rest it in the view of the poster as a jury of one ha.  

Pity Brian that an intelligent person like you, who even knows when practices within another county are stupid, cannot read what had actually been posted,  and thus avoid wrongly  attributing things to me, which not ‘my lawyer’ but a lawyer said.

You may see that I said 'your lawyer contributor'.    This assumes your grasp of the language will make the connection that it’s a contributor you introduced to your post, not your lawyer or even a lawyer said.   

You would be welcome to read this as something you made up yourself and called a lawyer, something a phoney lawyer said and you posted or something a lawyer of your choice asking a question of your choice has given an answer to.  Either way it’s hearsay and could be as equals nonsense as the request to put where you are when filling in a form  

Can i respectfully ask that you read it again now it’s been explained to you, and comment accordingly.  

But yes, stick to reality John.  Good idea. 

Brian wrote: Mickey may have a point that it’s a local legal jurisdiction, but then mentions its likely to be statute in EU law, in which case it would be required in the UK too. Any local jurisdictions would be applicable to the place the form is submitted, not filled in   

At the risk of sounding a trifle pedantic Brian this requires clarification. Britain has so many op outs from European legislation you would need to do a lot of research in order to discover if that claim is true.

As the prime minister of Luxembourg so wonderfully put it the other day about Britain's position in Europe. "Before they were in with a lot of opt-outs, now they are out and want a lot of opt-ins'.

Brian you said ‘John (and his lawyer contributor ) says it obviates fraud ....’

I did not say that 

For such an ‘intelligent person’ I am again surprised you do not read what is written before jumping in to make a foolish comment 

That’s strange John.  So you placed information from your lawyer contributor but now claim you don’t agree with what you posted?   What reality do you want to stick to now?

mickey.  Ha nice quote, I wonder if the Luxembourg PM can come on and explain if they have this stupid and pointless requirement there, and if so what it means?    Maybe he or she would opt out of explaining it though.  

John has the answer, just argue semantics and quote unconfirmed sources, then stick to belligerence and claim it’s reality!

A true EU believer.