Confirmed: Buyers deposits for Herrada del Tollo, San Jose covered by generic guarantee policy

Blue Med Invest
Post reply   Start new thread
New - Old :: Old - New

Pages: Previous | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | Next |

Residencial Santa Ana del Monte forum threads
The Comments
14 Apr 2011 3:17 PM by TonyMal Star rating in Oxfordshire. 1090 forum posts Send private message

Hi Brian,

 I do not think this impacts so much on HdT as SGR. if SGR have to pay out I believe that they will take over the credit and be bound by the agreement and not generate further loss.  I am trying to get a bit more info on this and when I do i will get back.

It may not suite all to take the risk but for some it may be worth a try but it must be understood that there is no gaurantee as each case may have different cirmumstances etc.

All the best

Tony




Like 0

Spam post or Abuse? Please let us know

20 Apr 2011 5:35 PM by roy82 Star rating in R17 No 20. 60 forum posts Send private message

Banks don't always win. Today's news:

Banks Face Huge Bill After PPI Court Case

, 16:49, Wednesday 20 April 2011

 

The British Bankers' Association (BBA) has lost a High Court challenge brought over new regulations to control the selling of payment protection insurance (PPI) to borrowers.

The judgement means consumers who took out PPI will have to be contacted by providers over the mis-selling scandal, to agree potential settlements.

Mr Justice Ouseley, sitting in London, was told the new regulations could cost the industry up to £4.5bn in compensation payments.

The Financial Services Authority (FSA) estimates PPI providers will have to pay out up to £1.3bn for new complaints received over the next five years.

Banks (Euronext: SBK.NX - news) face additional bills of up to £3.2bn following reviews of previous PPI sales and pro-actively contracting customers to offer them redress.

They have been accused of generating millions of pounds in profit by mis-selling PPI.

The banks, represented by the BBA, challenged the FSA and the Financial Ombudsman Service over how the new rules on PPI came into force in December.

The banks had asked the court to quash the regulations because they will not only apply to new policies sold after the beginning of December, but also to complaints relating to cover sold before the new regime was brought in.

Lord Pannick QC, for the BBA, said the changes could lead to 35 insurance companies failing, with the resulting refunds to borrowers falling on the Financial Services Compensation Scheme.

He told the court: "If that assumption is an underestimate of the response rate, the costs are going to substantially increase," he said.

The new regulations set by the FSA aim to ensure consumers are treated fairly, both when they buy PPI and when they complain about being mis-sold the cover.

PPI policies are meant to repay people's loans if their income dries up because they fall ill or lose their jobs.

People who may be eligible for compensation claim they were unaware they were paying for PPI, or did not need the insurance. Others claim they felt pressured into taking it out, alongside a loan or credit card.

Today's ruling backs the new regulations which state that PPI providers will now be required to talk potential customers through the key feature of a policy and make it clear to the customer that the cover is optional.

Lord Pannick said the banks recognised when a PPI sale was conducted outside rules which applied at the time it was "right and proper" that compensation should be paid. But he argued the banks are now being held to "more onerous standards".

Martin Lewis from Moneysavingexpert.com told Sky News: "Consumers have won. It's a fantastic result.

"Banks have to go out and knock on their customers' doors and say 'we mis-sold you PPI'.

"If you have a PPI policy you could be entitled to thousands of pounds back. This is a devastating result for the banks."




Like 0

Spam post or Abuse? Please let us know

26 May 2011 10:41 PM by nweatherall210 Star rating in Scunthorpe, England .... 74 forum posts Send private message

nweatherall210´s avatar
Hi Guys

Just thought I'd let you know I've signed up with GM Legal and joined the class action.

Anyone fancy a quick head count of who else has joined the action?



_______________________
All the best, Nigel & Jo. nweatherall210@hotmail.com


Like 0

Spam post or Abuse? Please let us know

27 May 2011 11:14 AM by Glendale Star rating. 74 forum posts Send private message

Yes we have we joined up around easter time and went to see her as we were out there and close by, so its at least two of us, we also get regular updates which is a pleasant suprise.

 

kind regards

 

mark




Like 0

Spam post or Abuse? Please let us know

27 May 2011 1:47 PM by Guadalupe. Lawyer Star rating. 261 forum posts Send private message

EOS Supporter

Hi everybody,

I am pleased to inform you that we are now 100% sure that BBVA signed with SGR a generic guarantee. We have found this information through the meeting of creditors' paperwork. You can read it yourselves on the report made by the Trustee’s in Bankruptcy, pages 72 and 74, in which it is confirmed that SGR, Banco Pastor and BBVA provided Bank Guarantees to some buyers (in total, just 7.8% of the deposits were covered by Individual Bank Guarantees). The total deposits covered by bank guarantees from SGR is quite less than the 6.5 millions of euros covered by the generic guarantee, so they can’t use as an excuse that they have reached the limited amount guaranteed. Same with Banco Pastor.

This means that we have an extremely  very strong case against BBVA too, because it was the Bank who openned the account shown on contracts to paid the deposits into (ending 2159), and it provided individual guarantees to buyers who paid on that account), which means that, or BBVA did not requested the payments to be made through the special account, or the aforementioned account is special, and all the deposits paid on it should have been guaranteed.

No matter which is the answer to the above question, BBVA is clearly liable.

 

I will keep you posted,

 

Regards,

 

Guadalupe Sánchez

GM LEGAL EXPERTS




Like 0

Spam post or Abuse? Please let us know

27 May 2011 10:12 PM by Chrissie1 Star rating in UK. 384 forum posts Send private message

Chrissie1´s avatar

Thank you Quadalupe. 

Regards Chrissie1



_______________________

               
Chrissie   


Like 0

Spam post or Abuse? Please let us know

27 May 2011 11:07 PM by nweatherall210 Star rating in Scunthorpe, England .... 74 forum posts Send private message

nweatherall210´s avatar

Nice to know your with us Glendale.

Guadalupe did previously intimate she had 6 people signed up, with more coming, but Im not sure they are all forum members.

I've also just seen a blog post on EOS from a new member called Diane looking for help.

http://www.eyeonspain.com/blogs/madisoncairns/5613/blog_post.aspx?blog=madisoncairns&post=5613 

& yes it is actually quite refreshing to have a Spanish lawyer in Guadalupe who communicates with you quite quickly when you ask questions.

Regards



_______________________
All the best, Nigel & Jo. nweatherall210@hotmail.com


Like 0

Spam post or Abuse? Please let us know

28 May 2011 12:48 AM by briando55 Star rating in Yorkshire. 1982 forum posts Send private message



This message was last edited by briando55 on 28/05/2011.

_______________________

Best wishes, Brian

 



Like 0

Spam post or Abuse? Please let us know

28 May 2011 12:48 AM by briando55 Star rating in Yorkshire. 1982 forum posts Send private message

Hi all

We have decided to sign up also. Good luck everyone.

_______________________

Best wishes, Brian

 



Like 0

Spam post or Abuse? Please let us know

28 May 2011 12:48 AM by briando55 Star rating in Yorkshire. 1982 forum posts Send private message



This message was last edited by briando55 on 28/05/2011.

_______________________

Best wishes, Brian

 



Like 0

Spam post or Abuse? Please let us know

28 May 2011 8:15 AM by roastbeef Star rating in Northeast of England. 22 forum posts Send private message

Hi Gaudalupe

 

Could I please ask if the limit on the Generic bank guarantee'shave  been exceeded? and also is there any case law to support this claim?

Thank you

Diane




Like 0

Spam post or Abuse? Please let us know

30 May 2011 10:55 AM by Guadalupe. Lawyer Star rating. 261 forum posts Send private message

EOS Supporter

 Dear Diane:

 

These are the figures shown on the Trustees in Bankruptcy's report:

 

€ 2,109,711€ Banco Pastor

€ 29,670€ Banco Pastor & SGR

€ 1,330,951€ BBVA

€ 192,624€ BBVA & Banco Pastor

€ 829,941€ BBVA & SGR.

 

Please note that, in accordance with the information we hold, the limit of the SGR generic guarantee amounts to 6.5 millions of euros, and the limit of the Banco Pastor generic guarantee is 3 millions of euros, so any of both limits has been reached yet. We don't know yet the limit of the BBVA generic guarantee, but limits are not really relevant as long as it doesn't applies to purchasers under the provisions of the 57/68 Act & customers protection laws.

So we have enough arguments to fight against what Banks are going to allege to our claim:

- the limit amount hasn't been reached yet,

- and the payment of the deposit  into an "special" account wasn't required by them to issue individual guarantees, because we have documentary evidences that the three Banks provided individual guarantees to buyers whose deposits were paid into an account openned in Bank different to the one who made the individual guarantee.

 

Best Regards,

 

Guadalupe Sánchez Baena. 

GM LEGAL EXPERTS

 

 

 



This message was last edited by Guadalupe. Lawyer on 30/05/2011.


Like 0

Spam post or Abuse? Please let us know

30 May 2011 8:10 PM by roastbeef Star rating in Northeast of England. 22 forum posts Send private message

Thank you Guadalupe

I was in Spain last week, I wish i had of come to see you while we were over there. 

Going to take this all in and then contact you

Diane and Keith




Like 0

Spam post or Abuse? Please let us know

30 May 2011 9:10 PM by trowell1 Star rating. 150 forum posts Send private message

 Hi All

Just joined this forum as it seems the one where the right info is. I too have taken these thiefs to court to try and get my money back, with an outcome which I find shameful. Guadalupe has told us in clear terms what can be done to get our cash back and when I consider the deposits involved, I find a fee of 700 euro great value. I feel as long as I do everything possible to try and get my cash back then even if it fails then I've done as much as I can. I would hate to be someone who hasn't done this and then watch everyone who has, getting their cash back. 

Good Luck to Everyone




Like 0

Spam post or Abuse? Please let us know

31 May 2011 11:27 PM by Ian and Margaret Star rating. 76 forum posts Send private message

I'm not sure where we stand. We paid our deposit by cheque to Ambasun who we bought through.

After advice on another forum we terminated our original Spanish solicitor from Torrevieja who, by the way failed like Ambasun to advise us to get a bank gaurantee and joined several other buyers to get a solicitor  in Manchester to represent us who have a Spanish solicitor working for them.

We have paid money out to them and still see no signs of getting any money back although we have like others been promised 65%of our original deposit. 

Would Guadalupe be able to do anything for us or are we too far up the creek without a paddle which was lost years ago.

Ian




Like 0

Spam post or Abuse? Please let us know

01 Jun 2011 12:53 PM by HAWKINGS111 Star rating in Las Filipinas. Spain.... 290 forum posts Send private message

HAWKINGS111´s avatar

Hi all.

I have not posted on here for a long long time, probably some 20 months or so, eversince we got our deposit  back in full with some interest from SGR against our Bank Guarantee. We had to change from an Alicante lawyer who did not seem to know much about bank guarantees to Guadalupe who was referred to us by someone else who also got their money back via her. At that time people were spouting all sorts of rubbish like bank guarantees were not worth the paper they were written on, etc, etc, etc. Some of our friends have also received their money back on their bank guarantees since then as well.

When we first sat in front of Guadalupe she held our bank guarantee up and said this is a cheque and it MUST be cashed by the bank and eventually it was. My point is that as far as i am concerned this lady and her company know what they are talking about and i have every confidence in their capabilities as good lawyers and their fees to us were very competitive compared with those of other lawyers.

I fully appreciate what my good friend Sue {hi Sue} was saying that €700 can be a lot of money to people especially if retired and on a budget but hearing about this generic guarantee, it sounds like Guadalupe has a good case here for people to get all of their money back { I know nothing is ever 100% certain}, but if at all possible i for one if it were me would go with it, as it may be the last chance other than wait 5 years for 65% back.

Just thought i would put my two pennyworth in for what it is worth but of course it is up to people to make their own decisions according to their circumstances.

Good luck to all those still fighting to get their hard earned cash back.

                        Cheers.  Bob.

P.S. Fabregase still with The Arsenal. Keep trying Barcelona. Ha.
 



This message was last edited by HAWKINGS111 on 01/06/2011.

_______________________

      Now  Retired and have our money back in FULL via our bank guarantee.    Bob and Pauline.



Like 0

Spam post or Abuse? Please let us know

01 Jun 2011 3:25 PM by Guadalupe. Lawyer Star rating. 261 forum posts Send private message

EOS Supporter

 Hi,

 

Ian and Margaret: I have just emailed you, so please check your private email facility.

 

Nice to hear from you, Bob & Pauline. Hope you are well.

 

Best Regards,

 

Guadalupe 

 



This message was last edited by Guadalupe. Lawyer on 01/06/2011.


Like 0

Spam post or Abuse? Please let us know

01 Jun 2011 3:50 PM by Guadalupe. Lawyer Star rating. 261 forum posts Send private message

EOS Supporter

 Hi everyone:

 

As many members are asking me about the legal grounds of the case, I felt it would be good to post a reminder, in which I have included the new information released by the Trustees in Bankruptcy's report. Hope you find it useful.

 

 

In Spain, builders are forced by the law to provide Bank Guarantees to buyers for the deposits paid, or they could be fined otherwise. Therefore, when a builder is planning to develop (specially a big development), he usually contacts with a Bank to get financing for the development and provide Bank Guarantees to buuers for the deposits paid.

The agreement signed between the Bank and the builder in which the Bank commits to provide individual guarantees for the buyers' deposits is called Generic Guarantee (“poliza de contragarantia de linea de avales”) is the Spanish name. As you can imagine, the Bank doesn't provide the individual guarantees for free, because the builder must pay a high interest and commission for every single guarantee made, and even request some guarantees. So, in practice, the builder doesn't request bank guarantees for every deposit to save money, and the Bank, despite it is aware that deposits are being paid, doesn't issue the bank guarantees for every deposits, alleging that they just made individual guarantees as long as they are requested by the builder.

 

 

 

But the 57/68 Act (art. 1.2)  states that deposits from buyers must be credited into a "special" account", separated from any other builder's funds, and builder will be entitled to withdraw them just for building purposes. The same article also states that the Bank is LIABLE FOR REQUESTING BANK GUARANTEES FOR THE ABOVE DEPOSITS.

So as long as the Bank is aware that money being paid into builder's accounts comes from buyers (deposits), must control for which purposes releases the funds and must request the Bank Guarantees to the builder. In addition, the article 7 of the aforementioned Act rules that the rights granted by that law to customers cannot be waived.

 

 

 

Bearing in mind the above considerations, it is obvious that when a Generic Guarantee has been signed, the Bank is fully aware that funds being paid into its account to the builder are deposits paid by buyers, which should be guaranteed pursuant to the 57/68 Act. So the existence a Generic Guarantees turns a good case against a Bank into a very strong case, because the evidences that a buyers should produce to claim for the Banks' liability pursuant to the art. 1.2 of the 57/68 Act get reduced to the Generic Guarantee.

 

In this specific case, HDT signed generic guarantees with three Banks: SGR, BBVA and BANCO PASTOR.

Pursuant to the generic guarantee, SGR provided individual guarantees to purchasers who paid their deposits to BBVA. Same did Banco Pastor.

Regarding BBVA, they provided individual guarantees to purchasers whose deposits weren't paid into the account 159. This could just mean 2 things: or the account 159 is “special”, so every deposit paid into it must have been guaranteed, or for BBVA it wasn’t really relevant in which account money was paid, so as long as they provided individual guarantees tor buyers who paid into the account 159, the should have provided one to you too.

 

 

 

The above means that if for the three aforementioned Banks the bank account were the deposits were paid was not relevant for them before (in order to issue a guarantee), the fact that deposits weren't paid into ab special account can’t be used now by same Banks to avoid their liability, under the provisions of the 57/68 Act and the doctrine of estoppel (it is a doctrine that may be used in certain situations to prevent a person from relying upon certain rights, or upon a set of facts, e.g. words said or actions performed, which is different from an earlier set of facts).

 

 

 

Nor can the Bank allege that the Generic Guarantee it has been already used up because they settled with the builder a limit amount to be guaranteed. In accordance with several and unanimous court precedents, this limit can't be used against buyers under the provisions of the aforementioned 57/68 Act, because the art. 7 rules that the rights granted by the law to customers can’t be waived. Additionally, the information released on the Trustee in Bankruptcy’s report confirms that limit amounts shown on generic guarantees have not been reached yet.

Conclusion: Banks were suppossed to give you an individual guarantee to cover principal plus legal interest, under the provisions of the generic guarantee. As they did not give it to you, you are entitled to claim them deposits plus the legal interest.

 




This message was last edited by Guadalupe. Lawyer on 01/06/2011.



This message was last edited by Guadalupe. Lawyer on 01/06/2011.


Like 0

Spam post or Abuse? Please let us know

02 Jun 2011 3:06 PM by Chrissie1 Star rating in UK. 384 forum posts Send private message

Chrissie1´s avatar

Hi Guadalupe

Thank you once again for your very helpful information.  Could you please give us an idea of how long it might take to get our deposit back from the bank if we take this action? Also would the interest be calculated from when the deposit was given, in our case 29.11.2006? 

Regards Chrissie1



_______________________

               
Chrissie   


Like 0

Spam post or Abuse? Please let us know

02 Jun 2011 3:32 PM by Guadalupe. Lawyer Star rating. 261 forum posts Send private message

EOS Supporter

 Dear Chrissie,

 

Yes, the interest is calculated from when the deposit was paid. About the time, it is hard to say, because it depends on the court.

On our engagement letter form, which I think you already have, it is shown a time scale estimate.

Regards,

 

Guadalupe

GM LEGAL EXPERTS




Like 0

Spam post or Abuse? Please let us know

Pages: Previous | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | Next |
Post reply   Start new thread


Previous Threads

Legal interest is covered by bank guarantee. Buyers can still claim to SGR - 4 posts
Renting Your Property - The Legal Aspects - 0 posts
Plan B - 20 posts
Inside trading laws - 3 posts
Questions but no answers - 19 posts
Hdt Questionaire - 21 posts
SARC January report & additional documents - 54 posts
Suing your Lawyer! - 0 posts
Good News for all of you left with nothing to show - 24 posts
News article La Verdad - 18 posts
News Article - 13 posts
Tired of JA spreading missinformation. - 6 posts
Happy New Year - 8 posts
Legal Tip 409 - 0 posts
Authoristion for change of water use for SADM phase 1 - 20 posts
Land ownership in Spain - 4 posts
San Jose Inversiones ( SJI ) Vote - 31 posts
Interesting News for Those Without Bank Guarantees - 0 posts
SARC October 2010 update report - 2 posts
100% money back on failed Spanish builders bank guarantees - 20 posts
I've Won against my lawyer - 8 posts
Legal tip 277. Low cost action against Banks. Manifesto by Costaluzlawyers - 29 posts
BANK GUARANTEE PETITION - 8 posts
HdT out of Adminstration/Court release official count of vote - 13 posts
ARRIBA HOMES - 5 posts

111 posts were found:


1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
Our Weekly Email Digest
Name:
Email:


This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse you are agreeing to our use of cookies. More information here. x