08 Aug 2015 8:35 AM:

John,

After the judge decides in your favour they appeal once to the high court and then on to the Supreme Court.  And I think the reason is if they admit liability they are admitting to fraud. It's also designed to scare people off.

You will discover that it is the banks who choose and vote in the judges.

finally the banks have forced the courts to introduce a new law which puts the onus firmly in the hands of the buyer, but only effects new buyers.  We remain under the old laws.

Bottom line is it's a farce.  One case should set a precedent but this appears to be a money making racket that goes unchallenged. Pity it's not like ppi.

good luck, we all need it.

redman.

Community thread: Fees and expenses questions

--------------------------------------

30 May 2015 9:07 AM:

Hi Andy & Lynne,

If this is the first court hearing then this is normal, it is to give the chance to the bank to pay 'out of court' so to speak, which of course they don't do and they deliberately send it to court on the hope that a percentage will drop out, but adds another year to the process.  You will likely win the 2nd hearing but they won't pay out at this stage and your solicitor will use an embargo to force them to pay, which they reluctantly will, but then they will appeal, so although you will have the money in your bank you have to wait another year for the appeal.  After winning the appeal they will likely send it to the Supreme court in Madrid, however the good news is the Supreme courts so far have backed the customer, but there is a link between Banks, Goverment and Judges but thats for others to work out, don't ask me what I know.

I think those who got their money back in the early stages are the lucky ones as the procedure I describe is the path the banks are taking.  Why on earth it's not like English law where one case set's a precident, e.g. PPI.  But this is how they all make their money.

Advice:  stick with it, you willl only regret not trying.

Best regards,

Redman.

Community thread: Advice for newbie re. suing bank

--------------------------------------

04 Jul 2014 9:12 AM:

I thought this thread was more appropriate for my comment.

Thought I'd add my experience from yesterday as I've just returned from court in Alicante.  Not a good one I have to say and dreading the next few days/weeks.

What was meant to be a simple task of answering simple questions like how many properties I purchased, it was an interigation by two banks, one credit union (insurance company) trying to dig their way out of a big hole.  The main topic was how could we prove that Ambasun paid which bank.  The fact the BBVA were on the contract didn't seem to mean anything.  They even brought in witnesses from the banks to ask them if they were aware of our payments.  Like they're going to put our name on any funds they receive in the bank.

The other theme was why did it take so long to make a claim against the bank, even though throughout this process we have had representation from 2008, resolved contract in 2010 and took this action in 2013, mainly as we weren't aware of the option prior.  I did mention the slowness of the system didn't help.

Anyhow, we await judgement, but didn't feel like a winning experience. Dreading the next few weeks.

Also, even before we entered the courts we were told that the banks will appeal regardless of anything, and assuming you win the first stage, the first appeal will take 12 months, to which they will also appeal it will then go to the Supreme court in Madrid where all these cases will be given a big 'yes' or 'no', but said it could take many years longer.

Yours 'sick of the whole thing'

Redman

Community thread: Being cross examined by the Court?????

--------------------------------------

03 Jul 2014 6:22 PM:

Thought I'd add my experience from today as I've just returned from court in Alicante.  Not a good one I have to say.

What was meant to be a simple task of answering simple questions like how many properties I purchased, it was an interigation by two banks, one credit union (insurance company) trying to dig their way out of a big hole.  The main topic was how could we prove that Ambasun paid which bank.  The fact the BBVA were on the contract didn't seem to mean anything.  They even brought in witnesses from the banks to ask them if they were aware of our payments.  Like they're going to put our name on any funds they receive in the bank.

The other theme was why did it take so long to make a claim against the bank, even though throughout this process we have had representation from 2008, resolved contract in 2010 and took this action in 2013, mainly as we weren't aware of the option prior.  I did mention the slowness of the system didn't help.

Anyhow, we await judgement, but didn't feel like a winning experience. Dreading the next few weeks.

Also, even before we entered the courts we were told that the banks will appeal regardless of anything, and assuming you win the first stage, the first appeal will take 12 months, to which they will also appeal it will then go to the Supreme court in Madrid where all these cases will be given a big 'yes' or 'no', but said it could take many years longer.

Yours 'sick of the whole thing'

Redman

Community thread: New Case won against SGR and BBVA in Herrada del Tollo

--------------------------------------

28 Jan 2013 10:44 AM:

Dear all,  I don't know the reasons, but carolinemills has been removed from this forum and web site so can no longer be contacted through here.

Anyone know why?

 

 

 

 

This message was last edited by redman on 29/01/2013.
Community thread: San José/Herrada del Tollo

--------------------------------------