24 Apr 2025 12:30 PM:
Thank you Maria.
This is so complex and appears to depend upon sequence of events ( when urban planning illegalities became apparent) and knowledge of protective law and who is expected to have sufficient prior legal knowledge to act in any timely fashion. For the SC or judges to suggest that purchasers should have such knowledge and experience would appear highly questionable, when the majority of purchasers use conveyancers to manage their legal affairs with all due diligence.
Playing devils advocate some questions spring to mind relating to sequence of events and who becomes ultimately legally responsible when urban planning illegalities continue to be facilitated within the Spanish conveyancing system.....
Within the conveyancing process, whose responsibility is it to identify, in any timely fashion, any urban planning illegality which could compromise the purchaser? Is this part of a conveyancers' due diligence? At what point in reality did these urban illegalities become apparent to conveyancers?
Likewise should any Bank that finances any Spanish development be responsible from the outset as part of their own due diligence to check that the development in question complies with Govt and regional planning directives? Has this due diligence on the part of the Banks now been brought into question?
Likewise should local authorities also have due diligence requirements to check that Govt directives re urban planning are being complied with?
But in that process, what are the sequence of events and legal mechanisms in place to protect and safeguard the purchaser FROM THE OUTSET if local authorities, developers and banks and conveyancers CONTINUED TO FACILITATE URBAN PLANNING ILLEGALITIES ( I.e. they continued to ignore regional directives to control urban planning)?
Who then becomes ultimately responsible if the conveyancing process continues to be facilitated in an illegal fashion, with the purchaser left unaware that they will not be provided with an LFO until it is too late in the day?
How can any purchaser be held responsible or deemed to be acting in bad faith in these circumstances when it would appear that those who continued to facilitate urban planning illegalities appeared themselves to be acting in bad faith if they had knowledge of regional directives intended to control urban planning and did nothing to halt the conveyancing or financing process at the point they became aware of such illegality? Or even after the event by continuing to allow Spanish conveyance whether this be sale or purchase of a property without an LFO?
Is this why Andalusia and Valencia have taken a stance to regularise these properties? But ironically doesn'tt this in itself undermine the control of urban planning in Spain, so long as regional directives are allowed to be ignored or overwritten in this manner? But sadly the innocent purchaser is scapegoated in the interim and now is deemed to be behaving with bad intent! How can that possibly be seen to be legally levied on any innocent party?
But then at what point in this conveyancing cycle does ley57/68 continue to protect the purchaser from such urban planning illegalities if this law was being constantly challenged ( for decades) by the Banks who were in receipt of purchasers deposited monies, or financed the purchase which left the purchaser without habitation rights?
Catch 22 scenario.
So the question arises again.....
At what point in reality within the conveyancing cycle did these urban illegalities actually become apparent to ALL those who have responsibility to control and safeguard against such illegal activities? The local authorities , the conveyancer, the developer, the depositing or finanacing Bank, all surely have played their part in this sorry saga. Who has ultimate responsibility to notify of changes in planning directives and thereafter what procedures are in place to to inform all those who facilitate subsequent conveyancing and financing in this regard? So many ongoing questions Maria.
It would appear that without effective legal and regulatory controls in place from the outset, all purchasers will sadly remain at great risk of Government and regional planning directives being ignored by all those who continue to facilitate a conveyancing process that fails to recognise such planning directives and scapegoats innocent purchasers in that process.
The solution appears to cover a far wider perspective than just compensating those innocent purchasers who have been scapegoated in this urban planning nightmare, Maria. Would you agree?
Thank you again for your patience to consider all of the above.
This message was last edited by ads on 4/25/2025.
Thread:
We’re Back! Embracing New Beginnings and Relocations to Spain
--------------------------------------