First time comment

Peter,

I have now read section 18 of the HPA, are you claiming that the banks abused their powe? If so can you explain how.

Also I feel this is a mute point, as there in no way you would get 25% of owners to vote against ML. I would be amazed if you could get 10%. Although there is a lot of noise being made against our administrator, its being made by just a few people.

No, Darren.  I have never made such a claim - how could I, the minutes haven't been published yet?  Anyway, ML (being an 'efficient' administrator) would apply the HPA to all resolutions, and advise the Pesident (s) accordingly.  Thereby, avoiding any possibility of litigation - wouldn't they?

It would take a majority (approx. 51%) of owners, present at an EGM, to remove ML - providing they, also, represent a majority (approx. 51%) of the Quota present.

It only needs the Pesident to call, or 25% of the [individual] unit owners to force, an EGM

Please remember that the number of unit owners is less that the total number of properties.

Peter

p.s. Never say never

Peter you are wrong in this case

Once completed the property is legally and in the community rules OWNED by the developer which is why they have responsibility to pay the community fee. They have the right based on their percentage ownership to do whatever they want and typically become President and decide on the Administrator

If the Banks take back the properties, perhaps the developers default they legally become the OWNER with the responsibility to pay the community fees and have voting rights

Once somebody buys the property through the normal process then they become the owner

Now you can try to spin this however you want but legally 25% is of the total properties built and registered on a phase, if there are 12 properties finished with COH in place then 25% is 3, for 100 properties it is 25

In Spain you have far less power than you think and I have been dealing with these issues for years, including some with properties that I own

Peter,

I am still bewildered, but I am trying my best to understand both sides of this situation. 

You say the banks have not abused their power and you agree they are entitled to vote any way they wish? So whats the problem?

I still maintain, you would never get even 10% of owners to vote against ML, so cant understand your crusade?

Is it not time to lay this matter to rest and lets see what happens. If you are confident that ML will falter over then next 12 months, then you should have no problem getting rid of them next time.

Roy

I assure you that I am not 'wrong'.  Section 16, as I understand it, has been applied sucessfully on 2 other urbs.  where I have interests in properties.

The HPA is designed, in part, to protect individuals.

Regards,   Peter

Sorry Peter I actually had a case exactly 2 months ago on this very basis and you are wrong as long as the developer or bank paying they are in control and this was tested through The Courts and the developer won

Daren

I can not say, at this time, whether, or not. anyone has abused their power.  Only the signed minutes will show this.

Of course, any voter has the right to vote whichever way they choose - but the Law (not me, you, or ML) prescibes whether or not the vote can be counted.

I do not intend to attempt to call an EGM.

As I have posted before:  If I'm wrong about ML, then there is no harm done; but if I'm right.... I hope you have 'deep pockets'

Peter

Roy

Where an owner ( any owner ) has two or more propertiesonly one vote is counted for that owner in any AGM / EGM situation what they are allowed is the sum of their co-efficientswhen calculating the double majority required in HPL.

So it is clear that an owner with multiple properties is an owner but not several owners when it comesto the requirement to get 25% of the ownersto call for an EGM in section 16,  or,  in section 18 where a multiple owner can use his vote for the benefit of one owner... that being himself.

Of course the initial ruling of a court in Spain cannot and is not  taken as case law.

Regards

Barry 

Hi Roy

Could you, please, supply details of the case, and the result of any appeal that has been disallowed (presumably all the appeals have been heard or you would not have mentioned said case).  I will then study the court papers, and get back to you in due course.

Regards

Peter

The facts still remain as were the facts in this case that yes if somebody owns multiple properties then they get multiple votes so again a real example here where the developer still owns and should be paying community fees on 70% on the properties on an individual phase

2 properties is yes twice the vote so yes if one person owns 25 of the properties on a phase of 100  he has 25% and could request an EGM and yes he can then give his proxy to whoever he wants

Peter I am really not sure what your agenda is here if you believe that you have the ability to get 25% of what you claim to be the owners under the clause in the HPL then try to call an EGM, test the water, I know that ML will simply refuse based on the actual law

As I said before you can debate this till the cows come home, you are going around in circles, if using your interpretation you believe that you have 25% of the owners try requesting an EGM

In all honestly the case or specific problems on another site in this case prove nothing because each area can rule in a different way

I have one other thing to add, a comment that I have made before, this is a public forum which buyers and holiday makers read, which promotes rentals and I am assuming that some owners on here would like to rent out their properties

What do you think that perspective renters make of the comments on this development by reading these comments, perhaps it might put them off a little bit especially when you discuss rundown areas, and financial problems, think about it

Roy

No agenda.  You are the one who accused me of being wrong.  All I am asking is for you to back up you accusation.  Now, as you are either unable, or unwilling, to do so; we will have to draw a line under this exchange - as, obviously, there is no way forward.

Regards

Peter

You may well be right, Chaddyowl.  But I'm a 'tryer', and the World loves a 'tryer'

As I tried to explain this is connected to my business and trying to resolve problems on another site and I really don't have to justify or back up anything to you, I believe that perhaps I have been here in Spain much longer than you, my actual business inspectahomespain has dealt with many of these types of problems and I know what I am taking about, through practical experience, and not meant to cause a row

In fact I have been trading in Spain now for 9 years and was one of the very early members on this forum

If you look at my history on this forum, the many articles that I have had published and my history what I try to always do is help people with SENSIBLE advice and try not to attack anybody and offer what I believe is a balanced view, mine isn't as you describe it an accusation, just based on what has ACTUALLY happened

If as you claim you have tested this and succeeded on 2 other developments perhaps you would like to share with the readers where and what was actually achieved by your intervention

In your case, if you just look back over the history of your posts, not just on this thread but generally you seem to have many strong opinions but not do too much about actually resolving the issues which I have advised you to do by trying to call an EGM

Between you and some other posters here by focusing on the negative aspects of your developing you are actually damaging the image and rental opportunities for other owners, basically try too fix the problem rather than moan

Well said Roy!

As Chaddyowl said........................

Peter

p.s. Been in business, in Spain, since 1986 - that's 26 years  

God help the future of your resort with people like you around and as we say some people have eyes but simply cannot see, or don't want to see

26 years then you should know better by now, how about helping your neighbours but perhaps your are just a Troll

Very mature, well thought out post.  After reading it, I would not hesitate in contracting your services

Not the first time that you have accused somebody, who did not agree with you, of being a Troll, is it?

Please do not reply as, quite frankly, I have better things to do than 'banter' with a 'know-it-all'

Actually Peter you are a troll as I have been looking through some of your old posts, on all different threads, 26 years sorry twoddle

My comments about the way I feel about god help the owners are actually said with real sincerity, unfortunately on most of these developments there are too many busy bodies who are quite happy to spout about changing the world but doing very little, unlike me in my business in Spain

Unlike some people on here I do not hide my identity, don't use multiple logins, and start on the basis that I actually want to HELP people, your past posting really make interesting reading, I reckon 90% of the posts are negative, and by the way on all different communities where you actually regularly contradict yourself

Now this is a quite afternoon while I am waiting for a furniture delivery so this is a way of passing a cold afternoon and I am delighted that you are not one of my clients,  but perhaps some of the more educated users of this forum can understand the damage that you and your cronies are doing to this resort with your comments

Perhaps you really don't care, perhaps you don't even own on CDA but am I wound up no, I enjoy a good exchange of views

Hi Roy ,

so it is 25% of owners is the requirement to call an EGM , I was not sure of that . On the subject of a particular phase on CDA would I be correct in saying that the original jardines 1 to 13 were phase 1 ? and if that is so then 25% of the owners on these gardens would be the requirement ?

What in your opinion are the various phases on CDA , obviously La Isla would be one but what are the others ?

regards Ken