SarahSG,
So many questions relate to this if this claim is lacking in required documentation ( evidence of payments) and cancellation of contract has never been diligently acted upon by your original conveyancing lawyer.
Perhaps worth asking Maria additional questions and might this be worth Maria kindly addressing this on the main site rather than in a community thread, to act as educative detail to the benefit of all.
But one basic question ...are you now considered to be outside any time limit relevant to this form of joint Bank/ developer claim requiring cancellation of contract due to the developer not providing the property according to the contract ( or gaining any written approval requiring extension to the agreed completion date)?
In effect even if other claimants in the interim have been successful in their claims to date, does any time limit associated with cancelllation of contract since placing your deposit now preclude this being of any advantage to your pursuance of a claim under Ley57/68?
If so does this time limit also preclude any claim being made against the original conveyancing lawyer in any way, if they were lacking in due diligence in this regard by not gaining cancellation of contract on your behalf in any timely fashion?
In effect is the delay between paying your deposit and gaining cancellation of contract now the main factor denying you any ability to regain your deposit under Ley57/68?
In which case more questions arise...
Don't conveyancing lawyers have to act with all due diligence in this regard, not only for cancellation of contract, but also for provision of all necessary documentation relating to deposited monies, and is there any advantage at this late stage by placing a triple joint claim against developer / Bank AND conveyancing lawyer?
To repeat, is there any possibility of regaining monies via a triple claim to also include the conveyancing lawyer?
Or has this route to justice never been considered legally viable for those in this circumstance?
By using this triple link, would this ultimately make the original conveyancing lawyer accountable for return of monies ( under their legal liability insurance) using established case law/ doctrine associated with developer and Bank and all relevant Ley 57/68 supportive SC rulings achieved to date, but also proving that the claimant has been denied this ability to use such supportive rulings/doctrine due to the original conveyancing lawyer's negligence/ lack of due diligence by failing to acquire all necessary mandatory evidence that Maria has made mention of to fulfil any claim against the Bank ( I.e. Bank payment detail and cancellation of contract)?
If this Banking detail has never been acquired to act as as evidence, nor cancellation of contract pursued, then surely the conveyancing lawyer would beome legally liable as last resort, wouldn't they?
Or are we back to considering the uncomfortable scenario that the Bar Associations in Spain are rarely requested to " encourage " provision of all necessary legal documentation from its members? Or are some Bar Associations reticent to do so?
By this I mean is it still worth pursuing a request via a second legal opinion to bring this lack of documentation by the original conveyancing lawyer relating to deposited monies to the attention of the Bar Association?
There appear to have been some prior instances where this additional route to acquire evidence has been of benefit to the claimant, and the conveyancing lawyer in question subsequently provided ( albeit delayed) such essential Banking details to the client, in order to pursue a Bank claim.
Might this be another necessary route to follow prior to suggesting negligence/ lack of due diligence by the originating conveyancing lawyer, to demonstrate all avenues have been followed to request provision of all necessary evidence to facilitate a claim against the Bank?
Or perhaps non of this is relevant or too late to be of any benefit given your circumstance?
Worth asking the questions from Maria perhaps and reporting back, if only to educate others in a similar circumstance.
One other point...
Can a presumption be made that you did not own other properties in Spain nor that this related to a touristic licence which now appears to have added complexity to supportive SC rulings achieved to date.
Good luck.
This message was last edited by ads on 7/7/2023.
This message was last edited by ads on 7/8/2023.