Bank Repossessions Again

Have to agree, that’s why we pay lawyers to do searches or find anything detrimental to a property purchase.

Any IBI owing or any other finance taken out against the property will be clearly visible to any half decent and straight independent lawyer, if you buy from the banks lawyer, then watch out.

But just who is going to inform the FCO of this, sure,y they have experts who understand the procedure better than you or I.

Three important questions arise from this.

1) Could purchasers be liable for back payments of IBI in the event of Banks owing these monies to local authorities. Is this also an accumulated debt attached to the property?

2) Does a source of information that a purchaser gains from any website or forum absolve their lawyer from the requirement to demonstrate all due diligences associated with purchase of a property?

3) Does the FCO website  https://www.gov.uk/guidance/how-to-buy-property-in-spain#legal-advice   assist in the education process and guidance to comprehend the differences between the UK and Spain and does this in any way compromise the potential purchaser? Would it assist the purchaser to remain aware that Banks accumulating debt with explanations of where debt could arise, be of sufficient importance to be included in this guidance detail?

Three important questions arise from this.

1) Could purchasers be liable for back payments of IBI in the event of Banks owing these monies to local authorities. Is this also an accumulated debt attached to the property? Yes, it is.

2) Does a source of information that a purchaser gains from any website or forum absolve their lawyer from the requirement to demonstrate all due diligences associated with purchase of a property? No, it does not.

3) Does the FCO website  https://www.gov.uk/guidance/how-to-buy-property-in-spain#legal-advice   assist in the education process and guidance to comprehend the differences between the UK and Spain and does this in any way compromise the potential purchaser? I do not know, but will be happy to provide that information to them. Would it assist the purchaser to remain aware that Banks accumulating debt with explanations of where debt could arise, be of sufficient importance to be included in this guidance detail? Yes, but, as said, a conveyancing lawyer needs also to do this as part of a good due diligence process.

There seems to be a lack of public trust and confidence in some Spanish lawyers and a perception they tend to be either negligent or incapable in their responsibilities. Rarely do we seem to be informed who is responsible for people becoming victims of the horror stories posted on this forum like illegal builds, worthless bank guarantees and unknown debts attached to properties. It may be that conveyancing and the pitfalls within the Spanish legal system are so complex that lawyers cannot guarantee anything, perhaps that’s why the legal Bar association never seems to discipline any lawyer. We continually read of victims fighting for justice but never fighting anyone who should have ensured they never became a victim. Perhaps someone could advise if a Spanish lawyer has ever been found guilty of neglect within the last 20 years? Or is it all just bad luck and Mr Nobody’s fault.

Of course we only hear the horror stories and not the 99% of things that do not go wrong.

Dear Kavanagh:

Yes, of course. There are many Court decisions against lawyers for negligence in conveyancing and off plan investments.

M

Thank you Maria

That’s quite interesting. In order for expat clients to fully protect themselves and avoid loosing their life savings and becoming dreadful victims of negligent Spanish lawyers would it be a good idea for expats to engage a UK solicitor to carry out a due diligence check on all Spanish lawyers and their work before completion of any procedure?

Perhaps this should be recommended on the FCO website.

Ads

I believe MARIA has clarified your questions.

Just to add, ALL debt especially local authority fees and even if property is used as collateral to purchase a car will remain with the property, hence the need for vigilant lawyers.

As there is little oversite or regulation that has any value of lawyers and certainly Administratirs I’m nit sure who would advise the FCO, I believe it is as much up to the FCO to research as it is the buyer but I conceded they are trying to help buyers.

The authority that oversees Administrators has written to the Central Bank to point out the massive amount of debt across Spain that is owed by banks to Communities and seemingly has fallen on deaf ears.

As bankers and lawyers are still, possibly wrongly, held in high esteem in Spain where a class structure still exists, there is still not enough questioning of their actions or regulation of their profession.

The fact that MARIA has confirmed that many outstanding court decisions against lawyers still exist sums up what everyone is facing in Spain.

There are now increasing numbers of legal actions against banks on mortgages and guarantees.

The courts are so slow because of the amount of wrongdoing in the country.

But I can only repeat that the FCO would have to be very careful in what information it advertised if warning against  banks or lawyers.

There is a list of recommended lawyers by the FCO: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/spain-list-of-lawyers

There is a list of recommended lawyers by the FCO: Wrong

''Our aim is to provide our customers with as much relevant information to enable them to make better informed decisions but our lists are not recommendations and should not be treated as such.

Prepared by British Consulate Alicante''

Absolutely correct, the FCO or indeed any government department cannot recommend or warn against any particular lawyer or bank or commercial business.

Well, in any case, I am sure they will not place any name there if they knew they are not recommendable. 

Perhaps a step too far to make that assumption 😀

I think the problem here might be that the list of law firms appears to have been presented to the FCO by local authorities,  which then begs the question have the Bar Associations been consulted as they appear to be the organisation who provide accreditation?

Have good law firms been feeding back instances of legal malpractice and lack of due diligences etc when they subsequently picked up the pieces born from previous malpractices, so to speak, and have the Bar Associations responded in such a way as to adequately deal with the issues that have so compromised innocent citizens?

So once again we come back to the need for a trusted and effective reporting and monitoring system in Spain (relating where applicable to Banks and legal professionals non compliance with a myriad of standards and laws intended to protect, which in turn is  compliant with the rule of law). And the irony is that this has the potential to work to the benefit of all good professionals and citizens alike in the longer term.

This message was last edited by ads on 24/11/2018.

This message was last edited by ads on 24/11/2018.

No law firm will report another law firm for legal malpractice and lack of due diligences, it is an unwritten code of practice within the legal profession. Furthermore no law firm will commence legal proceedings on behalf of a client against another law firm, that is also part of their unwritten code of practice. The only response a client with a grievance will receive is ‘’go report the law firm yourself, we will not act’’.

Would this form of protectionist behaviour be against lawyers code of ethics Maria?

Doesnt the publicly disclosed code of ethics state ““In no way must he act coerced or by complacency”?

And wouldn’t that also be against the rule of law which is described as

“The authority and influence of law in society, especially when viewed as a constraint on individual and institutional behaviour; the principle whereby all members of a society are considered equally subject to publicly disclosed legal codes and processes“.

And doesn’t this also apply to Banks who fail to comply with their mission statements plus any legal professional (at any level) who is coerced by protectionist  influences?

Anything and everything applies to every one, but if getting these people to comply and do good practice is another thing, you can ask Maria these questions until the cows come home but all she can do is say yes or agree, still don't mean it will happen, as the past has proved a thousand times.

Ads: Totally agree with you: in my opinion, Bar associations need to be very active on controlling and punishing lawyers´ breaches of the deontological code. It is, as you well said, for the good of all. We need to take our ethical obligations very seriously.

Of course, lawyers claim against lawyers.

In real practical terms....

https://ec.europa.eu/info/policies/justice-and-fundamental-rights/effective-justice/rule-law/rule-law-framework_en

http://www.rightsinternationalspain.org/en/areas/3/access-to-justice-

Both of the above could be approached by good legal teams and/ or the Bar Associations to protect clients best interests, to protect the rule of law and protect the Spanish legal system from external protectionist threats such as Banks powerful lobbying  (to ensure judicial independence and lack of interference), if they felt sufficiently concerned by events and the impact on rightful justice.

Time will tell no doubt. 

But if nothing is done in the face of protectionism that subsequently threatened citizens rights and access to justice, then it would sadly undermine trust in good law firms  determination and intent to protect existing clients best interests going forward. It would also undermine progress and precious case law and doctrine achieved to date.

Turning a blind eye or complacency is no longer acceptable given the volume of outstanding claims that could be compromised, not to mention the impact on Spain’s reputation to comply with the rule of law.

 As SC changes it’s interpretation with regard to Ley 57/68  in favour of Banks, which threatens precious case law and doctrine achieved to date,  is there a heightened risk that lawyers legal indemnity will be compromised by proliferation of litigation against lawyers ( as opposed to Banks), as the risk of insurance companies becoming insolvent grows? Thereafter once insolvent and in the absence of any similar law in place to protect, as exists within BG law according to Ley 57/68, claimants will no longer be able to reclaim their monies via lawyers legal indemnity! And ironically, wouldn’t this be a repeat of the same scenario that compromised early claimants against developers?

Doesn’t this demonstrate exactly why INALIENABLE rights afforded by LEY 57/68 was so critical to purchasers protection from the outset, and why legal certainty MUST prevail in this regard?

The questions keep coming because there is ongoing failure to affirm legal certainty to the fact that offplan purchasers were afforded INALIENABLE RIGHTS FROM THE OUTSET OF DEPOSIT ACCORDING TO A LAW INTENDED TO PROTECT. 

So long as litigation is allowed to proliferate in this manner, placing innocent claimants at risk ( and at growing risk of being scapegoated in that process as protectionist forces come into play from within , which in itself appears to be in contravention of the rule of law), and undermining a system of justice in that process, then Banks will continue to cause chaos, and will never be made fully accountable for their denial of purchasers INALIENABLE rights for return of monies in the event of proven developer breach.

We should all remain aware of the need to comply with the rule of law if any civilised system of justice is to prevail. But also the need for legal certainty becomes paramount. Undermining the rule of law and failure to achieve timely legal certainty, with due respect of precious case law and doctrine that has taken years to achieve, places all citizens at risk of abuse by powerful institutions, let alone individuals.

Ads:

I am answering your questions below in bold green ( same text as your email): 

As SC changes it’s interpretation with regard to Ley 57/68  in favour of Banks, which threatens precious case law and doctrine achieved to date,  is there a heightened risk that lawyers legal indemnity will be compromised by proliferation of litigation against lawyers ( as opposed to Banks), as the risk of insurance companies becoming insolvent grows?  Well, I am sure claims against lawyers in those cases will not be as numerous as to make Insurance companies insolvent.Thereafter once insolvent and in the absence of any similar law in place to protect, as exists within BG law according to Ley 57/68,claimants will no longer be able to reclaim their monies via lawyers legal indemnity! And ironically, wouldn’t this be a repeat of the same scenario that compromised early claimants against developers?

Doesn’t this demonstrate exactly why INALIENABLE rights afforded by LEY 57/68 was so critical to purchasers protection from the outset, and why legal certainty MUST prevail in this regard?

The questions keep coming because there is ongoing failure to affirm legal certainty to the fact that offplan purchasers were afforded INALIENABLE RIGHTS FROM THE OUTSET OF DEPOSIT ACCORDING TO A LAW INTENDED TO PROTECT. 

So long as litigation is allowed to proliferate in this manner, placing innocent claimants at risk ( and at growing risk of being scapegoated in that process as protectionist forces come into play from within , which in itself appears to be in contravention of the rule of law), and undermining a system of justice in that process, then Banks will continue to cause chaos, and will never be made fully accountable for their denial of purchasers INALIENABLE rights for return of monies in the event of proven developer breach.

We should all remain aware of the need to comply with the rule of law if any civilised system of justice is to prevail. But also the need for legal certainty becomes paramount. Undermining the rule of law and failure to achieve timely legal certainty, with due respect of precious case law and doctrine that has taken years to achieve, places all citizens at risk of abuse by powerful institutions, let alone individuals.

I trust our Supreme Court  to confirm the great doctrine it has produced so far and not to change it.