Legal tip 725. Murcia Appeal Courts states Polaris has breached contracts

 Legal tip 725. Murcia Appeal Courts states Polaris has breached contracts 

11 March 2012 @ 00:41 

Despite it does not conclude that breaches by Polaris on facilities offered in publicity gives to buyer the right to cancel the contrat and obtain the refund of all money paid, IT DOES ACKNOWLEDGE the breaches in relation to lack of advertised facilities which,obviously, as the Court states ,  might GIVE buyers/owners RIGHTS to important price reductions. A fifteen years deadline from completion is available to this aim.

Time to complete at real prices in Polaris or obtain a good compensation in relation to properties you own there

Maria

"El Gastor", Cadiz, Spain, by ElPantera, at flickr.com

Very interesting.  So I take it this basically applies to people who bought off plans or prior to when it was obvious CdA was not going to have what we were initially promised. 

Would this be something the owners as a block/group (the original or earlier ones anyway) would pursue??

That's interesting.

We're very happy with what we have got but if there's value in chasing up some compensation then whats the procedure.

I did read in December that someone won a case and received 20k euros in compensation for that exact reason. Can't remember if it was Condado or another Polaris resort though.

Cheers

Jay

Well considering what was promised on CdA and what has eventuated I think there would be a case to answer.

Any compensation would be nice

As we have definitely not received anything like the advertised facilities when we purchased off plan originally, I would like to think that we can at least apply for some kind of compensation - those of us who purchased under the original terms anyway.  Should we proceed as a group through the elected Presidents as representatives, if they are agreeable, or is there another viable route we should take.  I agree most are happy with their apartment, but it is a fact that we have not received anywhere near the promised facilities made by PW.

Anyone have any suggestions on this, or ideas of how to proceed?

Perhaps Maria may be able to help with this one!

Linda

 If the Condado residents have a right to compensation who wil pay it?  I thought Polaris was skint!

A tad of compensation maybe, I doubt much, they'll claim no funds and it'd cost to go to Court, which in Spain isnt a quick option. Those who bought in the early years bought 'off plan' - "buyer beware". It was the financial crash that did for PW surely not pure mismanagement or criminal intent- regards CdA at least. Like to know more though.

Hi

Wise words TQM.

It may well be the case that PW is liable for some form of misrepresentation or breach of contract BUT, just because PW may be liable does not mean that there will be any money at the end of the process.  Getting a judgment is one thing, getting the cash is a different matter.  If PW is skint or its assets are secured to banks, the chances of getting some cash are likley to be slim to none. 

If anyone is giving serious consideration to going after PW, make sure you know there is something to go after.  I'm sure there are loads of people out there who have been badly let down by PW but be careful about throwing good money after bad - says the lawyer!!

David 

Has anyone found any more on this- I haven't been able to.

My understanding of the first post is that people who bought expecting a variety of facilities may have soom to say their proerties should not have cost what they did because the facilites did not arrive.

Thats different from what many think in terms of compensation- no-one can be compensated completely for their purchase as they got the apartment they were contracted to but as the development  should have had this and that and they didnt happen there should have been a reduction in the overall price of the apartments.

I know 'off plan' meant that changes can be made to the original advertised plan for a development but I suppose it doesnt mean that whole sections can be removed. So on CdA the Foro and Al Gora where combined to be the Al Kasar so we have no cause for complaint as shopping, eating and drinking facilities were provided just not as the original plan. The fact they close down is due to the economic crisis not PW. On phase 1 we got 1 golf course- the others were to be on other phases so can that be an issue and no Oasis- can that be an issue?

Does anyone have any greater understanding of this ruling and what it could mean?

I am just curious as I doubt PW would reduce our mortgages but more info would be good.

Maria's blog on EOS has more detail, questions and answers that have been put to her on this topic.

Maria seems to be saying that the courts appear to have left the decision of there being up to 15 years before compensation of any kind because the missing facilities may be developed over time. You'll see that that answer caused some spitting of feathers as it leaves everyone having to wait to see what transpires.

None of the questions seem to relate to CdA owners and our position of most of the undeveloped land where facilities should have been belonging to the Banks now.

Maria suggests the Courts may be hoping that some discourse could develop between developers, banks and owners or their legal representatives to find a way forward, although at this time there is no communication with Polaris.

I think thats the general gist of what said on the blog, but have a read and see if you agree.