Return of deposit

Hi,

We are using the Claims Bureau and have given there Solicitor Power Of Attorney in order to gather information for the court case, only been a couple of months not heard anything as yet.

we had quotes from other companies just read the small print, some wanted 15% which is a lot cheaper but they wanted to keep any interest that was awarded and you would have to pay VAT on the interest !! interest could be around 40% if awarded (4% over 10 years) reclaim in spain was chrging 35% but this was + vat in the small print, I think we are being charged 35% inc vat and get to keep any interest. seems high but its no win no fee and means that you should get back what you lost after they've taken there cut.

Good Luck

Glynn

Hola, costa luz kept offering  their services and in the end I sent them copies of a case I had won against Grupo Urbasa and as they had gone out of bussiness no money could be had.  I have tried two other legal firms and have been told by them that it was not possible to claim against Palmera as they too had folded.

I am, after about four months, still waiting for Costa Luz to come back to me .I am not holding my breath as I am now 77 and need to keep breathing.

They should be claiming direct from the Bank which I think has been taken over by Barclays, will keep you posted on any developments

Yes the bank is the main target, also my Lawyer is after Palmera's law firm in Belamadena along with Palmera's owner who has now been released from Jail and has many assets.

Thank you for your comments.  I've finally filtered through all of my paperwork and have found all the necessary documents I think will be needed :) I've contacted a few places and think, for our case and situation, we'll need to take a no win no fee option as we don't have money upfront to help the cause sadly.  But on the plus side, we'd be happy with any return as we would never have had any money back otherwise.  Let me know how you all get on.  I've got an afternoon of scanning ahead of me!  

Although case law exists against Banks ( for cases where evidence of deposits are linked to developer accounts) perhaps it’s important to establish if any lawsuits for compensation against law firms who acted negligently, without due diligence  ( legal liability insurance) have been won to date?

I thought this litigation route ( legal liability insurance) was only to be used as a last resort, if the Bank claim failed or evidence was not made available? Is this correct?

A different matter however if a complaint to the Bar Association is being made with the intention of making the law firm accountable via fines etc.

I wonder if any law firms have been made accountable by the Bar Associations to date?

Spanish legal reclaims have told us that they cannot proceed as the evidence that the money went from the solicitors to Palmera is not available as Palmera is in court under criminal proceedings

Has anyone had any better luck elsewhere.

Hi we were thinking of going with Spanish legal reclaims , I sent them an email explaining had a missed call from them and a message to get in touch if we want to use them,. Would they still be wanting to take clients on if they knew they couldn’t win with it being No win no fee ? Any more updates before I get in touch with these would be appreciated thanks

Debbie 

Hi, we're using The Claims Bureau which is part of Reclaim in Spain. My last update was that they were waiting for confirmation from the town hall that a Habitat Certificate or Licence was NOT issued, therefore the development was technically not complete or fit for habitation. They are still persuing the bank but getting there case together before taking to court as i understand it.

Glynn

Oh, just remembered, i think Spanish Legal Reclaim Charge VAT on top of there 35% fees, and the VAT is payable on the whole amount awarded I think. This is why we didn't go with them in the end, its in the small print !!

Glynn

Hi ... I elected to go with Spanish Legal reclaims in the end after a degree of discusion with Luis ... the Director. I think you will find him VERY helpful and informative and he really does understand the whole Ley 57/68 "thing". They charge a % which you will have to negotitae with then which includes the PRINCIPLE sum invested ... INTEREST  and the COSTS. In other words you also get the costs back as awarded by the Courts. A lot of the other firms keep the costs for themselves! So ... whatever you recover will be a % of the TOTAL COURT AWARD and not just the Principle. Give Luis a call.

Things are starting to move albeit very slowly seems the banks tactics are of slowing things down, they are saying that we were  investors /  business and not covered by the Spain return of deposit ruling  so we now have to prove that we wasnt. We are back in court early April to contest this at whats called a prelim sitting and have to prove this to the court prior to the main court date. Seemingly this is normal so not really worried as we were definatly not a business or investor as such but just  people wishing to purchase a holiday / permanent home in Spain     

On what evidence are the Bank making this suggestion?

Have you been informed of the exact legal grounds they are stating in their opposition and have they quoted supportive case law to substantiate their claim? Have your legal team advised you of this level of detail?

Can the Bank make such claims without supportive evidence to substantiate their allegations?

My Lawyer has asked for the info and said its a normal tactic of the banks to delay so we have to go with his request. I am of the same views as you that they are the ones that should prove what they are suggesting /saying but seemingly it doesnt work like that in Spain ;(  

Is the inference that the Banks are making, by following this line of legal challenge, that all owners of holiday homes are classed as investors/ businesses with speculative intent? Is this linked in some way to the ability to potentially rent out your holiday home? And as such are they suggesting that inalienable rights afforded in law Ley 57/68 in place to protect and safeguard your deposited monies, do not extend to purchasers of holiday homes?

What exactly are they suggesting here?

Does residence/ non residence status come into this in any way?

More importantly does majority case law ( successful appeal court rulings) or any SC rulings exist to support those in a similar position to yourselves, who are being challenged in this way by the Banks?

Perhaps legal teams can clarify this and advise how they intend to defend this principle relating to inalienable rights for all offplan purchasers irrespective of whether the home was purchased as a holiday home or permanent home?

Are legal teams defending claimants inalienable rights under Ley 57/68 currently acting with one voice in this regard?

Does this latest Bank challenge leave all claimants at risk of protracted litigation until such time as SC doctrine exists in this regard?

Yet another piecemeal challenge by the Banks?

Is there not a growing need for INALIENABLE rights afforded by Ley 57/68 per se to be defended by a difinitive SC ruling to act as final clarification, especially taking into account the growing instances of supportive case law and SC rulings already achieved to date... rulings that have already taken a decade and beyond to achieve?

Cant answer any of your concerns, all I am is a non legal person who is trying to keep all informed as best i can, I suggest you address your concerns to your lawyer if the answer that my lawyer gave me that this is a normal  bank tactic is not to your liking.

Sorry my posting was to try and assist to ask the questions of your legal team and bring attention to some concerns that may affect you and many others going forward with their legal fight for justice.

If you are content with their answers then that is fine but sometimes to be forewarned of potential protracted litigation is forearmed.

Good luck and I hope you achieve a good outcome.

Well ... as stated last year I have gone with "Spanish Legal Reclaims" and here we are ... +- 12 months later and still not a lot further forward. OK Luis is a "nice guy" but the whole process is painfully slow. APPARENTLY they filed papers with the Court at the begining of November but so far ... or so I am told ... the Court have not sent them to the Bank (Cajamar). A bit disappointing given that GM Legal Experts already have decisions in other Trampolin Solera cases condemning Cajamar to repay. One think I have found which is totally different to the Legal System here in the UK ... Lawyers don't like to be told what to do ... you are expected to sit back like "good little children" and have endless patience in a situation which could outlive my Grand Children never mind my Children! ... CORRUPTION THY NAME IS SPAIN!!!

Hi we took the bank to court a year ago from start to finish it took one year after a ten year wait for law to be changed.

we won full deposit which was 75 percent of property paid interest for 10 years and court costs 

the bank paid the courts within a month and was in our bank a month later 

hope it all works out and good luck 

Wonderful result Gaza and well done, but claimants should remain fully aware of ongoing rulings and appeals that are continually compromising innocent purchasers, which only goes to prove what a legal lottery this has become and depends on so many differing factors, not least the region, the consistency of rulings, the Bank in question, Court  and judicicial delays, legal individual BG provision from outset of deposit or dependence upon generic BGs, complexities re where deposited monies were actually transferred, etc, and more recently a shift in ongoing SC rulings that weaken case law that have taken years to achieve. 

Those who have pioneered during the last decade and beyond to gain supportive SC rulings to the advantage of all who followed in their footsteps are still on occasions being subjected to the most onerous proliferation of Bank appeals, so it is sadly not just a case of the majority being able to gain swift accountability by any means.

Nevertheless it’s wonderful to hear of purchasers that have succeeded in gaining timely and full accountability from the Banks.