PLEASE SIGN THIS PETITION!

If you try to add your name to the petition you will see that you do have to supply your name.

You can then click a box to select 'Anonymous' and also you can select wether or not you wish to have your comments displayed.

I assume the petition will be delivered including the names of all the signatories, and the 'Anonymous' feature is only to protect peoples on-line privacy.

I for one do not want all and sundry privy to my private information and would appreciate this feature and be more likely to add my name to the petition.

Hi Sandra

As I posted this was only my opinion that personally the matter is so important that it would help if there is a name to the hell that the Banks are putting people through everyday.

The most important thing is that everyone has our their own views on this and those signing the Petition can consider each as long as we are pushing in the same direction.

Just Dan..

I assume the petition will be delivered including the names of all the signatories, and the 'Anonymous' feature is only to protect peoples on-line privacy.

Hi Sandra,

You are correct. The "annonymous "button is there to protect peoples right not to have their name shown to Joe Public on the internet. It in no way dimminishes the power of the petition , despite Dan and A.N. Other  critisizing people who do sign the petition in this way.

I also do not want all and sundry knowing my personal details.

Not critizising just an opinion.

Anonymous is of course peoples choice if they dont want to be Identified and as has just been said .

1 I  and many feel it does make a difference standing up for right and are happy to put their head above the wall

2 Others that wish to support  with no I.D and if they feel it makes no difference then its their choice

The important thing is that everyone that wishes to support this or any other Petition should be welcomed the rest are our personal opinions and no point in arguing about as we are on the same side.

In an attempt to get more support has anyone considered posting each development to see if those with B.G issues would support Ruths Petition.

Regards

Just Dan

On the developments that I watch, many do not appear to have BG's or do not admit that their development has a problem. A prime example being Trampolin Hills!!

Tish

Then dont bother to post them asking for support .?

From your comments that hardly anyone has a bank guarantee then there lies the answer to why the support it not as we may have expected and we should all give up.

Fact is that there are several developments that do indeed have B.G.s as well you know  and now appears to have passed you by.

As my support is clearly something of a problem for you for whatever reason  I withdraw it and wish you well with Ruths Petition.

Kind Regards

Just Dan

Can I just say  thank you to Ruth for her informative posting on this thread dated Dec 4th 12:33 (see below) and although the specifics of this petition do not appear to apply to our circumstance we wish her and all the petitioners the very best of luck.

In fact it's so far down this thread now I will copy in Ruth's message again as it's so useful...........here it is.:

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I will attempt to recap the petition to the Governor of the Bank of Spain as questions have been asked about it by posters to this and other forums. 

The petition to the Governor of the Bank of Spain will be sent to him for one specific reason. He is the man who has some power within his domain to exercise authority over the banks of Spain. You can read on the Bank of Spain’s website that, under the Banking Discipline Law, he can apply pressure where he sees fit and in some cases he can impose sanctions. Examples are quoted.

My own complaint is that I was given a legitimate guarantee from a High Street Bank which this same bank will not now honour. The courts, through three hearings and a review, whilst at first supporting me have reversed the initial decision and found for the bank. My complaint then to the Governor of the BoS is about the misuse of the courts by the banks in order to hold on to deposits.

My guarantee was a straightforward clear document of insurance – there is nothing in it to quibble about. It says all the right things in all the right places. I should have been able to claim against the bank without a problem. I need not have gone to court; I need not have had to wait three and a half years; I could have used the money to buy a legal property somewhere else thus enabling Spain’s property market to continue to prosper.

The Governor of the BoS is not responsible for people not receiving bank guarantees. The fault there lies with the developer and/or your lawyer. I also think the agents can hold their hands up here, too. When selling properties they could advise clients to make sure that all the legalities are in place. They are the ones with the knowledge of the area and the property climate and could have been underlining the ‘Buyer Beware’ caution. Some did; some didn’t.

If people without guarantees want to make a complaint then they should write to the President of the CGPJ (Consejo General del Poder Judicial - The General Council of the Judiciary) or, if they wish, draw up a separate petition to go to him. Personally, I would do both.

Suzanne’s petition which she is taking to No 10 – Spanish Property Scandal Petition – covers all points and everyone with any kind of problem can sign up to that. She has done such a stalwart job and well deserves a sympathetic hearing from Gordon Brown followed by swift action from him for all of us. If our Government can bail out savers in English banks that go under then surely they should consider bailing out the hundreds of us who are losing big money in Spain through no fault of our own. But that’s my opinion.

Yes, there is strength in numbers but that was never an aim of this petition. It was designed to focus on one particular aspect of the problems surrounding BGs – one which could be addressed by the Governor of the BoS, so he says. I, together with all the signatories, are literally calling his bluff!

Once you have read the petition itself, and you feel that it applies to your case, and that you can support it by making your position very clear in the comments box, then please sign.

I intend these to be my last words on the subject matter of the petition and I do sincerely hope that the above answers some of your concerns.

Thank you for taking time to read this.
roots

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

This message was last edited by ads on 12/8/2008.

Dan, You talk utter c***. The petition has nothing to do with you. Stop using the term "we " all the time. You clearly have too much free time on your hands and fill your day putting irrelevant posts on forums.  If you were the bread winer in my house I'd be very concerned.

Ads, Thank you for putting Ruths post up on top again. Dan is doing his damndest to hijack this thread. Ruth is as irritated by him as I am. You only need to look at all the other forums/threads he disrupts to get the measure of this guy.

Tish

Your Posting.  "The petition has nothing to do with you"

Think that about sums up the situation. I have a valid bank guarantee and I wished to support the Petition started by Ruth so it has a great deal to do with me.

You are aware that I do  what I can to help others for 8 years so they are also amazed at the stance taken.( are you really seriuos that other developments dont have a bank guarantee).

In any event your ego appears to over ride common sense and rather than stay around being insulted I let you seek the centre stage all by yourself

I wish Ruth all the best for the Petition. Please dont reply as this Tit Tat is just bringing the can only damage the Petition and now I have gone there really is no need

 Good Day .

All the people signing the petition are also helping but they don't all rant on like you..thank goodness.   Good -bye

Tish

You posted

"If you were the bread winer in my house I'd be very concerned."
 

If you were the women in my house I would more than concerned I would top myself

Regards Dan

We really wish you all of the best with the Petition.

 Please don't let this thread become a mud slinging match, it's far too important for that.

 Take your personal jibes to the PM facility and let's try to get as many signatures as possible.

This message was last edited by sandra on 12/9/2008.

No Sandra

As you say its to important for mud slinging and thats why I have withdrawn my support.

Regards

Just Dan

WOW..I haven't been on this forum for a while..but it's like watching a boxing match.. so let me have just one go at playing mediator..
I don't do slanging so this is my only input on this thread..

1. Take a step back from whatever you're arguing about.  Ask yourself what's the most important thing, is it -
(a) to be "right" in whatever you're saying on here.
(b) to find a solution to your underlying problem.
Advice - it really helps if you can stick to the facts and leave aside all the rhetoric (thats an awful lot of what's been said).

2. Assuming (hopefully) the above answer is (b), then ask yourself what's your underlying problem, is it - 
(c) you signed a contract without a builders guarantee.
(d) you signed a contract with a builders guarantee. 
(e) you don't much care either way, you're just looking for a way out of something you now wish you hadn't got into.
Advice - There's more to it than just having a guarantee, including who's liable (or agreed) to pay for it and compliance with
the terms thereafter. Unless your solicitor (acting soley in your interest) checks this properly at the outset then it's unfortunately
often a case of crying over spilt milk. If you're looking to get out and have a guarantee, you'll have a MUCH better chance doing
this alone using the relevant legal expertise. The trouble with having a "lot of weight" behind something is it can get very fat 
(financially) and as no two cases will be identical it's liable to become "watered down" as a cause worth fighting for.
It makes far more sense to get a single "solid" case through and then maybe use that as a benchmark.  

3. Assuming (hopefully) the above answer is (d), then ask yourself who is best qualified to help you -
(f) is it one or more non-spanish nationals, presumably with little or no qualification in spanish law, presumably with little or no
capability of deciphering spanish text into english which has no relevance anyway within spanish law?
(g) is it someone with at least one of the above mentioned disdvantages whether via forum opinion or via a petition or any
other form of marketing campaign?
(h) is it  a legally qualified spanish national who has worked directly from referrals involving any builder/developer involved?
(i) is it a legally qualified spanish national who works completely independantly and has no connection whatsoever
with builder/developer involved?

4.  Assuming (hopefully) the above answer is (i), then I can strongly recommend a firm that someones posted a thread for
further back in this thread (Lawbird) and specifically the chap who got my full deposit back plus interest and compensation
in less than SIX WEEKS start to finish from those sc*mbags Larossa in Guardamar.
Luis Fernandez Gonzales via lfgonzales@lawbird.com, Luis sorted us out about 18 months ago now, took no prisoners and
sorted our subsequent purchase out also - again taking no prisoners - getting my contract changed again and again before
he'd let us sign it. Grovel grovel can't praise him or his firm highly enough, "Builders beware if Luis is in the chair"  ;o)   

over and out..stop squabbling and look out for number 1..be lucky 

Growler, I see the point you are making here and although your clarity of thought is welcome, with respect 18 months ago conditions were very different from today's economic climate i.e.

1)The developer would have been more willing to settle out of court if challenged, as they could still presumably make a "neat" profit from the deal.

2)The law courts were not clogged up to the degree that they are now with outstanding cases, appeals etc. so there was presumably far greater potential for a swift settlement.

3)The banks were not under the same financial pressure as they are now due to the credit crunch etc and therefore would presumably have been more willing to recognise BG's.

Also, the point regarding a single "solid" case from which a benchmark can be taken does not appear to have benefited Ruth does it?

Also how can one case put pressure on a government or banking system to effect radical reform and thus make the abusers (whoever they are) more accountable for their actions? Unfortunately one case win does not appear to assist those waiting in the wings, as the legal system at present appears to be a lottery, depending on which judge reviews the case.

Having said all of this, I think your posting certainly makes one sit up and take note of the need to seek out a competent and independent lawyer, one who will genuinely fight your corner and who as you say "will take no prisoners"..

Best regards.

aaargh...really I've tried to resist  the urge to respond.. but I can't...

ads - in all 3 points you use the word "presumably" and thats half the problem here (just my opinion) i.e. someone has a fallout
with a developer, and/or bank, and/or solicitor, then someone else "presumes" it's just the same for them. Much of the law (whether in spain or uk) can be seen as black or white or right or wrong. But so much of what has been stated on this thread comes out as very very grey.

It's the law for the developer to provide/offer a bank guarantee and it's the responsibility of the buyers solicitor to ensure that this happens
and is watertight. If it transpires that some form of  "guarantee" really isn't valid then who's fault is that? Is it the developer who obtained it
for the buyer? Is it the bank that provided it?..one things for sure you or me don't know that, and that's why we pay solicitors to find out for
us. 

Without "presuming" anything, the majority of cases cited in bank guarantee cockups are due to the solicitor not doing their job
properly, but because the disgruntled buyer knows (with hindsite) their choice of solicitor was wrong (mate of developer etc) they look
for some form of comfort from hunting with the pack. I apologise if this comes across as an over-harsh generalisation but I base these
comments on facts not emotions. I know from experience as I was well and truly "had" by a dodgy solicitor. I didn't seek out lots of other
people who'd also been had. I sought an independant solicitor who had already proven his game elsewhere, hence job done.   

Economic climate, neat profits, clogged up courts or the credit crunch have absolutely nothing to do with the law, but does have a lot to do
with peoples emotions, which (fortunately) have no place in law (as if they did then everything would be grey). More dangerously "lottery" and "judges" in the context you used suggests corruption at a higher scale than you can possibly go without ongoing legal representation from within spain.
 
I've even seen Gordon Brown mentioned earlier in the thread. How do you propose to put pressure on another countries banking system
when GB can't even put pressure on our own banks? I wonder whats higher up on GB's "to do" list - taking out Mugabe or getting back
deposits for people who bought in spain...how long are you willing to wait?

In summary, if someone feels they've been had, all you can realistically do is get your contract and guarantee to someone who knows
the law. I don't know the facts of Ruths case or the steps she took to get to this point. What I do know is that either her solicitor did their
job properly or they didn't.

Once again, I apologise profusely if reading this causes pain to anyone, but many of your petitioners (if they're honest with themselves)
will see something in what I'm saying.

Thanks for your honesty here Growler and you are correct to note that there were many "presumably's" in my posting.

If I understand you correctly then your inference is that the apparent inconsistencies in the application of law are more likely to be as a consequence of  the effectiveness (or ineffectiveness as the case may be) of legal representation rather than inconsistency from judges rulings.

It would be interesting to know your views on how you ever gain reform of a system which appears to be being abused by developers as a means to extend the legal timescale, to hang onto purchaser's deposits, and that timescale is allowed to become so extended (and the costs not inconsiderable) as to act as a deterrent for many who have valid solid cases to continue their fight for justice? I take your point of comfort from hunting with the pack. But if the system is being abused in this way, and the court system and its administrative processes become overwhelmed in the process, which inevitably adds to the problem and significantly delays the application of law (and in  this economic climate places them more at risk should the developer go into administration in the interim), then how do you ever hope to bring attention to this other than by petition to the powers that be?

Hi ads, thanks for being so understanding. It's not something you see too often on many forums but theres good to be had from healthy debate although my purpose for originally posting was purely to try and throw something into the ring and stop the tit for tat squabbling which rarely proves useful for anyone.

Again I have to say I generally try to see things pretty much as black and white (that doesn't necessarily mean good or bad or right or wrong by the way..it means different enough so it's clear for anyone to see!). I don't know who's right or who's wrong as I'm not party to whats gone on with anyones individual case. I could say "if this happens.." or "if that happens.." but then I'd be assuming either one way or the other, so I could be right but I might be wrong!!!, hence it would be reckless to give an opinion unless I had gathered all the facts first.

I know there are certain grounds which allow a developer to go beyond the 90 days grace period - or whatever they call it - (but I don't know whether that applies to all provinces so can't comment for those instances). Whether or not a judge would rule for or against something MUST depend on the way the case is presented to him (unless they are indeed corrupt..which I very much doubt by the way!) as surely he can only go on the facts? If we're picking holes in a contract and a bank guarantee and there are two sides to the story, then surely the contract has either been broken or not?

Gain reform of a system in another country? I just don't see it happening. Believe me, I can appreciate how passionate you feel about such a cause, but (in my opinion) all you can do is look at each case on it's own merits. If the buyer can - hand on heart - say "my solicitor is great and has proved the contract has been breached" then go to court..what else can you possibly do?

Really sorry I must bow out of this one now as it seems there's no end to it. I wish everyone involved all the very best...Pat

A happy New Year to everyone.!

I've moved my conversation on to a new thread called '2009 commitment' - take a look and let me know what you all think.  As I'm new to this website the thread is on the General Chit-chat Forum - not quite sure how it got there, but that's where it's ended up!      I'll learn...

Ruth