Spain’s monumental glut of new homes is still massive

Our Administratirs advice once they have determined that a bank is about to repossess is NOT to take any further action as legally they will pay even if it does take some time.

Senior branch staff at La Caixa have informed me that their bank policy is to pay once the property has been sold on, therefore they don’t bother registering the ownership as a Court Judgement has already given them the right to repossess.

Still banks are permitted to interpret directives and even laws in their own way in Spain, it would appear.

If funds are just buying the mortgages, then I assume the ownership of the property has been granted to a bank by a court BUT not necessarily re registered at Land Registry.

Many of the properties exist in the ether and any regulators, such as they are, either in Spain or in the EU appear to be happy to continue to stick their heads in the sand, hoping it will all resolve itself eventually.

This message was last edited by hugh_man on 29/06/2019.

This appears a scam by Banks ( and presumably Vulture funders) who are abusing the loophole in the registering system, by not having to register property in the land registry, (nor identify outstanding mortgages ?? ), and in so doing they are making communities not only obliged to cover their community debts during potentially long periods prior to sale, but also they appear to be hiding the following ( where they exist)

encumbrances,

loans,

charges,

easements,

lack of habitation rights,

ownership limitations,

prohibitions for transference,

judicial actions on the property,

embargos...

Just look at the list of  rights  covered when a property IS registered in the land registry, and ask yourself does failure to register a property suggest a multitude of risks hidden from view? 

Have I understood this correctly Maria?

Until such time as any decree to resolve this problem is addressed, can communities claim for backdated interest at point of sale or transfer ( backdated to actual date of transfer), to cover ALL their interim losses , or would this be impossible beyond a three year period given anything beyond 3 years appears to be written off? 

Given all of the above, surely “allowing” such compromisIng loopholes in a conveyancing system to continue in this way needs to be addressed, and isn’t the obvious solution therefore to make registering a property in the land registry COMPULSORY? 

Are the legal fraternity calling for a decree in this regard, which would act as vital support to enhance trust in a conveyancing system that still sadly leaves purchasers as scapegoats of Banks ongoing manipulative ploys?

Surely this is morally wrong to expose owners to this risk (requiring yet more litigation when the justice system is already overstretched and under resourced), when there is a potential solution at point of sale/ transfer?

Win win???

Without these loopholes the legal profession would not be as lucrative. Turkeys will not vote for Christmas.

It’s about establishing a common purpose to make Banks accountable in as fair a manner as possible, to prevent continual scapegoating of citizens whilst also establishing a positive way forward to rebuild trust in the system and remove compromising loopholes that sadly deter progress in this regard.

Stay positive!

EU banking regulation is among the strictest in the world. Yet hedge funds or vulture funds are lightly controlled. The Spanish government need to regulate them further since there's a particular need in Spain after the financial crisis. These funds are mostly based overseas and are trying to cash in on others misery. 

Regulation does not always suite a governments way of doing business. In most cases of injustice the government are fully aware of what is going on, but it prefers to do nothing. Why is the key question.

This article (Jan 2019) makes for grim reading, and goes some way to to explain  some uncomfortable complexities relevant to this scenario....

titled

“Opinion: Sound the alarm - a proposed EU directive on bad loans will give vulture funds a free rein”

“

A proposed new EU Directive aims to develop a secondary market for non-performing loans and poses a serious threat to the rights of borrowers and consumers, writes Matt Carthy. “

https://www.thejournal.ie/readme/opinion-sound-the-alarm-a-proposed-eu-directive-on-bad-loans-will-give-the-vulture-funds-a-free-rein-4451105-Jan2019/

It seems a common situation that the public elects other members of the public into office of power to take care of their interests only to be betrayed and let down. Why is that?

If the EU did not exist do you imagine national governments would regulate these funds vigorously? I suggest they would not. 

Look to the realities and impacts of EU decisions and the current EU Commission’s directive, and recognise the failings Mickeyfinn.

They have NOT protected citizens from Bank Guarantee abuse when advised, nor more recently mortgage abuse, preferring to leave citizens to their own devices leading to a major  proliferation of lawsuits, appeals, counter appeals, compromising the justice system in that process as thousands have taken to desperately defending their rights. And what’s more, they have compromised the rule of law in that process ( the need to provide sufficient resource to ensure timely justice) as Spain struggled to resource the justice system leading to major delays that have led to Banks further manipulative ploys. 

Perhaps you are unaware of the scale to this extraordinary ongoing fight for justice?

Please see beyond the rhetoric and ideology and review what is actually happening on the ground so to speak. 

The EU had infringement rights but chose for whatever reason not to implement them. Highly questionable when it comes to protection and enforcement of citizens rights I’m afraid. 

You didn't answer my question ads. Would the Spanish national government behave any differently to the EU? Liassez -faire economics are what has contributed to unrivelled post war western European prosperity. One one hand hand you complain about EU intervention in national affairs and then when they do you cry foul and say not enough.

I'm confused.

Ok here’s my thoughts Mickeyfinn and sorry to confuse.

IMHO, the EU do NOT do enough and sadly there is great hypocrisy in what they say and what they do with regard to the focus on protecting citizens rights. This latest doctrine only supports that perception.

Your question, “would the Spanish Government behave any differently to the EU” ....well the answer lies in a question. 

Would the Spanish Government better respond if infringement mechanisms in the form of fines or reduction in financial assistance ( intended to protect) had been placed against them, to act as incentive to pay due respect to highly questionable aspects that were scapegoating innocent citizens and using them as a pawns in disputes for instance between local and regional authorities? 

Would the Spanish Government have been better incentivised to ensure that the Bank of Spain better regulated its Banks to ensure full compliance with laws intended to protect and address abuse of mortgage floor clauses etc? 

Would the Spanish Government have been better incentivised to recognise the need to adhere to the rule of law and provide adequate  resource to a  justice system, so under resourced, overstretched etc etc.?

As for complaining about interference in national affairs on the one hand and then crying foul when they do....it all comes down to questioning their decision making. 

So when support for citizens is desperately required and the Commission fail to provide that support in any effective way, and yet on the other hand when they make inflexible decisions that compromise a nations cohesion, compromise a peace process,  and demonstrate arrogant and belittling behaviour during the negotiations supposed to achieve mutually beneficial agreements following a democratic vote to leave, you bet I question their behaviour and effectiveness. 

Even now they are stating a refusal to renegotiate in full knowledge that a no deal scenario would cause problems for citizens both sides of the channel. Sorry Mickeyfinn, but IMHO it’s wrong.

Having said all of that I make no apology for having great respect for the courage demonstrated by those keen to achieve justice against the powerful Banks, those striving against all the odds to gain accountability for citizens, those striving to improve the status quo and educating us all in that process, sometimes showing remarkable courage and willingness to put their own necks on the line to challenge the status quo....all in the absence of EU protection that is!

ads - So you are in support of this EU agreement with this directive that appears to work against citizens Mickeyfinn?

Actually No ads. I do believe these vulture funds work against the population in the long term and need controls. However, I can understand why the EU is acting in the way it is. They will have consulted widely with the affected central banks and finance ministers and arrived at a consensus that benefits both the economy and the banks. It is arguable that in also in the long term that benefits ordinary people.

Would the Spanish Government better respond if infringement mechanisms in the form of fines or reduction in financial assistance ( intended to protect) had been placed against them, to act as incentive to pay due respect to highly questionable aspects that were scapegoating innocent citizens and using them as a pawns in disputes for instance between local and regional authorities? 

Probably not No.

Would the Spanish Government have been better incentivised to ensure that the Bank of Spain better regulated its Banks to ensure full compliance with laws intended to protect and address abuse of mortgage floor clauses etc? 

The Spanish government and The Bank of Spain had full control over its economy, banks and credit system prior to the credit crunch which allowed the housing market to ludicrously overheat. They did not act to address the abuse no. So the answer to my question seems to be the government would do the same again, supports the EU directive and does not want to see vulture funds regulated.

Mickeyfinn,

How can this EU directive benefit the people in the longer term when it is essentially proliferating vulture funders who remain unregulated? 

How can it benefit people if mortgage holders are not informed nor have the right to refuse to have their mortgages sold on to unregulated venture funders?

Isnt this as the article suggests, a ticking time bomb?

“Moving hundreds of billions of euros of bad debt into the shadow banking sector through the securitisation of non-performing loans is incredibly misguided, and will cause major new risks to financial stability.

“Mortgage-backed securities, in particular, played a key role in the 2007-2008 crisis.

This was because banks pushed mortgages onto customers without verifying whether or not they could repay them, and then bundled the mortgages into mortgage-backed securities to be traded on.

Instead of making the sub-prime loans that formed part of these securities safer by mixing them with higher quality loans, the sub-prime loans infected the rest of the sector, until major investment banks could no longer put a price on certain securitisation vehicles.“

“The non-performing loan problem is a legacy of the 2008 financial crisis. This problem was not caused by ordinary people and they should not be forced to bear the brunt of resolving it.

The Commission says the new Directive is necessary in order to allow banks to lend to small businesses once again.

But all of the evidence shows that the ongoing economic problems in the EU are not caused by a lack of lending, but a lack of demand in the economy. The only way to boost demand is to increase public investment and foster real wage growth.”

“The real goal of this proposal is not to ensure banks lend again but to ensure they return to making massive profits again.”

I would be interested to hear the legal perspective from Maria in this regard in terms of leaving mortgage holders vulnerable in the longer term from the impact of such a directive. Does this in effect lay mortgage holders vulnerable if they are neither informed nor have the right to refuse their mortgage being sold on in this way?

If banks are reimbursed their lost funds they can lend more to help the economy. That's the theory at least. As said I am not defending the policy but can see some of its merits.

At whose expense in the interim Mickeyfinn?

Wouldnt it make more sense to ensure regulatory structures were in place first to ensure that it be made compulsory for mortgage holders to be forewarned and provided with the option to refuse the sale of their mortgage to vulture funders before this directive is implemented?

Might this leave the door open for yet more proliferation of litigation against vulture funders if mortgagees have never been forewarned in the first place ( with all the ensuing appeals and counter appeals that take years to accomplish before it became national doctrine)? Or perhaps the doctrine is already in place?

Am I misunderstanding something here? The thought of another bout of lengthy proliferation of legal action against these financial institutions doesn’t bear thinking about!

In its current form, how can this directive possibly benefit citizens of Spain or Ireland or any other nation for that matterwhen it leaves them so vulnerable?

This message was last edited by ads on 01/07/2019.

Our initial morgage was with GE. It has subsequently been sold on 3 or 4 times over the years to different funds, each time we have only been notified after the change. Maria addressed some of the issues on this thread: https://www.eyeonspain.com/forums/posts-long-23056.aspx . We asked our company if our loan came under this and were told no . A bit gutted really as it would probably have given us a good chunk off the sum.

Liassez-faire economic is a corner stone of Liberalism. Without incentive, risk and reward economies will grind to a halt. The regulators have to tread a fine line to make it work. If banks knew they would not be able to offload their debt risk when it goes belly-up they wouldn't lend. At least only to they with a gold standard risk. What that means is opportunity for the least privileged in society become excluded. The result of that is unpopular governments that get turfed out by voters.

It's about balance of risk ads. Not individual rights. Jeremy Hunt has said he's willing to let businesses and peoples lives go to the wall in a no deal exit as simply part of the cost of leaving. That reveals all in Tory thinkspeak.

Not so Mickeyfinn, I’m  afraid..... see the following countdown to Brexit (6 hours ago).

https://www.investmentweek.co.uk/investment-week/news/3006026/brexit-blog-hunt-outlines-no-deal-plans

”Despite having voted Remain in the 2016 referendum, the foreign secretary said he will push through a no-deal Brexit, even if it destroys some businesses, and has pledged a £6bn relief programme for the food and agriculture industry in particular, which would face tariffs. 

He is expected to say in the speech: "I will mitigate the impact of no-deal Brexit on you and step in to help smooth those short-term difficulties. If we could do it for the bankers in the financial crisis, we can do it for our fishermen, farmers and small businesses now."

On his cross questioning he stated  that they ( the Government ) would support those you make mention of......have you seen the live you tube footage from the latest hustings?

Much depends on the speed of ongoing negotiations but not holding my breath given that the EU are renowned for last minute negotiated deals!

P.s. Perhaps best we keep PM contenders debate to the PM thread!

EU banking regulation is among the strictest in the world. Yet hedge funds or vulture funds are lightly controlled. The Spanish government need to regulate them further since there's a particular need in Spain after the financial crisis. These funds are mostly based overseas and are trying to cash in on others misery. 

 MickyFinn

You appear to have a rose tinted view of EU Banking regulations, they failed us in 2008 as did the the US regulators and as Ads link suggests, this EU Directive appears to permit banks to remove bad debt from their books to protect their balance sheets and this time pass them onto so called Vulture Funds, who as you rightly point out are even less regulated and have replaced the Sub Prime mortgage packages of 2007.

EU Directives are just that, Directives and it is up to each government how they are enforced or not.

The Spanish government has NO overall majority, cannot agree a budget and is shit scared of upsetting its banks and bankers, who for some reason are still held in relatively high esteem in this very tradionalistic country that is also struggling with its manufacturing industry.