El blog de Maria

Anne said:
Thursday, April 26, 2012 @ 9:49 AM

Maria
Given the major delays that exist within the justice system that already significantly hamper case progress, an effective internal case monitoring and communication system is an essential tool to ensure transparency.
Clients need to be reassured that their cases are not being further delayed by lack of internal action, such things as chasing court agents, ensuring efficient follow-up actions on those aspects that can further compromise a case, etc etc. For instance we all know how developers, Banks, even some lawyers who have been obstructive with non provision of vital information, have hampered case progress by them “playing” the system of delays. This is the constant battle that clients are struggling against in Spain.
Therefore it naturally follows that only when an efficient internal monitoring system is in place and is seen to be working effectively, can transparency be afforded to any client.
Without this in place a client cannot possibly know if delays are subject to the justice system or if they relate to problems of an internal nature. Without this in place it then sadly becomes reliant upon the client to have to comprehend the internal processes associated with legal action, so as to differentiate between the two forms of delay that can significantly hinder their cases. They need reassurance that an internal workable system is in place and is working effectively so as to minimise the compromising delays at every opportunity.
Until such time as this can be guaranteed and given the background to abusive delays in Spain, it is inevitable that the client will feel increasingly vulnerable, which can sadly lead to cynicism and mistrust.
Likewise, for those of us desperately trying to be productive in terms of hastening reform, providing evidence of abusive practice etc , striving for positive ways forward to ensure Justice prevails in Spain, it becomes a learning process that is reliant upon an educative approach…. learning about the legal processes, where and how they fail (classic case of Ley 57/68), how improvements can be made, etc, which again becomes a two way process of communication, and for which we are very grateful for all your endeavours.

Rosemary said:
Thursday, April 26, 2012 @ 12:03 PM

Maria

Transparency does take up time, ensuring that you tell clients the important things that are going on. But saying that it is important that transparency does not mean telling us all we need to know, implies that we are asking lots of unecessary questions that you do not think we need the answers to. But when you tell us the bank will repay us in July 2012 and that the litagator has seized a property on our behalf, simply questions like 'how is the bank progressing with our payment?' and where and what details can you give us about the property seized last year? seem to me to be SIMPLE, IMPORTANT QUESTIONS that we need to know. What is so difficult about this, 2 emails needed - one to the bank and one to the litigators. As suggested by Anne in an earlier blog on transparency, copy us in on these emails and we wouldn't need to keep asking questions as we would be copied in on the answers. We at least would know that you are actively progressing our cause.

Maria said:
Thursday, April 26, 2012 @ 12:44 PM

Dear Rosemary:
Thanks for your email. Believe it is not a matter of having fundamental objections to you knowing all you want to know but a matter of time limits and limited resources. If we do not provide certain information is becuase it is not significant.
For instance, seizures of assets, are in general terms fruitless exercises so we prefer to communicate to you what we are doing to implement alternative efficient measures than to keep talking about useless matters.

I would aski you to please trust and unbderstand this.
Anyhow, I am taking a look to last email sent to you and will be sending a response.

Kindest,

Maria

Ken Foster said:
Monday, April 30, 2012 @ 2:31 PM

Given the large number of cases, it would be unfeasible to expect a constant stream of communication from the team. Surely Maria's point that transparency and honesty is more important than unnecessary communication holds true.

One thing i've learned over the years is that the legal system in any country does not move quickly.
Far better for us to let Maria and the team concentrate on important issues than waste resources on pointless communication.

I'm sure the directive is that communication will take place if anything SIGNIFICANT happens.

Maria said:
Monday, April 30, 2012 @ 2:35 PM

Thanks Ken!
You came today as a breath of fresh air!