Ron

I have property in La Marina Urb and have received a bill from SUMA for a property that I do not own, I cannot get the Postal Address of this property. The bill is for property tax going back to 2010, 2011 and 2012, I was told that suma cannot chase debts over 4 years old. Any clues if this is true?

Hello Rono and welcome to EOS

A bit of a long shot but have you thought about contacting SUMA office?

Pop along to the SUMA office. I don't know which one La Marina/San Fulgencio comes under but there is one in Santa Pola and one in Rojales. I've found the Rojales one to be very helpful. If it's not your property, and never has been, then you shouldn't be liable for it.

Go into the SUMA website (it's in English) and enter your NIE and the reference number on the bill. This will show you what bills are outstanding and for what. You may get the property address from there.

SUMA

Thank you for your replies, Yes I have been in contact with SUMA but they continue to say I am liable for the bill.

As I said before I am in UK at the moment and is difficult to get SUMA to answer my questions. The address on the bill is not a postal address so I do not know where the property is. I have asked them to look at the NOTA SIMPLE and they will see who owns the property, but still no sense our of SUMA.

Ron

If the SUMA have confirmed you are liable then they must have an associated address that relates to the bill?

Did the original bill come in the form of an email? This isn’t a phishing scam is it?

No the bill came to my uk address via post

Rono are you actually saying you have no knowledge of this property whatsoever and you have never had any association with it, ownership, renting or business?

Or are you asking if you can get out of the debt through some 4 year rule?

I have never owned this propert, I do not know where it is,

Never rented it or had anything to do with it

Well Rono you best get someone who speaks Spanish to visit the SUMA office and find out what this is all about and what evidence they have before they take a charge over your La Marina property and your UK property which they have the details of.

If you’re not careful you will be the next star on ‘’can’t pay, we’ll take it away’’.

Sorry, I can't offer any enlightenment, but this sounds a very curious case indeed! If, as you say, you do not know where the property is, how do you know that you've never owned, rented or had anything to do with it? I'm unfamiliar with "SUMA", but I've never seen an IBI bill without the address of the property in question on it. Are you sure there's no reference to the address of the property for which the bill relates to? You say it's not a postal address - so what exactly is it? 

Do you perhaps own a garage place or trastero?

If this is an error, perhaps just as concerning is a system that can allow this wrong cross reference to happen in the first place, without any inbuilt checks to ensure that all essential data associated with the property is available from the outset. A data base to cross reference is only as good as the data held within it....Is this a manual system or computerised I wonder?

Just a thought.....Is this a case where the back tax might refer to your own existing property (since you say it doesn't reference a postal address) and has never been paid by previous owners (not picked up by your conveyancing lawyer), and you, as existing owner, become liable?

Error or not it needs sorting out.

Perhaps the clue is in  ‘’I was told that suma cannot chase debts over 4 years old. Any clues if this is true?

Last year the IBI (SUMA) for my sons apartment was not paid though my bank.  Cutting a long story short.  When I questioned the town hall  they said my son had sold the property. They gave me the details of the supposed new owner.  Finally it was discovered the town hall had made a mistake.  

Error or not, it’s stressful when there appears a breakdown in willingness by the authorities to get this resolved. 

John in your experience of resolving problems do you think that errors of this nature are quite common, or is this a problem connected with the need for translators to prevent misunderstandings, or perhaps a problem in the system itself ( which is just as frustrating for those administering as for those at the butt end of errors)? Do you have any suggestions to solve this type of error going forward?

Ads

Well unless the original poster rejoins the discussion, we'll all be left guessing, regardless of systems, adminstrative bureaucracy, laws, regulatory compliance, blah blah blah, checks, counter-checks, accountability, blah blah blah, intransigence, corruption etc etc etc....

My guess (for what it's worth): there's a perfectly rational explanation & it's probably a simple misunderstanding, so speculating on this being yet another (perceived) case of injustice is premature to say the least.

rono.

Have you got anywhere with this problem, I think people would be interested to know?