Return of deposit

So long as the law firm trying to make the Bank accountable under Ley 57/68 does not cover every loophole with accompanying successful case law and supportive SC doctrine achieved to date in their legal claims, the Banks will continue their ploys to purposefully delay by continuing to appeal successful judgements. This is why it is imperative to use a highly experienced law firm to fight for justice.

Likewise there is also the need to understand the legal lottery in Spain with regard to the resourcing of courts and the fact that in certain regions that are under immense pressure from large numbers of rightful claims they appear to be struggling to manage the backlog. The Banks then try to use this to their advantage by again purposefully adding to the under resourcing pressures via their ongoing appeals.

Others have speculated that some law firms are also using these uncomfortable realities to gain more monies to defend against the failure to close down the loopholes in their legal arguments from the outset. 
Sadly it has become a legal minefield for some and the Banks are content to use this as a ploy to disincentivise rightful claims against them.

There has also been speculation that the courts too have been delaying return of monies following successful rulings as a means of resourcing their own underfunding scenarios but how true this is, is anyone's guess.

The bottom line appears to be that until the justice system in Spain is effectively resourced and recognition of Banks accountability is fully recognised via supportive Supreme Court doctrine to close down their continual attempts to undermine not only rightful claimants but also the justice system in Spain, that this compromising scenario will continue ad infinitum.

Well ... I can but sympathise with anyone and everyone who has been caught out by the Spanish Legal System ... a "system" I characterise with the simple words "Corruption thy name is Spain"! The only reccomendation I can give is to just keep on fighting the corrupt System. I eventually won my case against Trampolin through the Courts in Almeria, Cajamar paid the PRINCIPLE sum to the Court and then appealed ... as they all do! I had to "fight" with the Court to get them to pay me (I am considering fighting the Court for the loss of interest) and now have to wait for the Appeal. Spanish Legal Reclaims, who were acting for me, having one the main case but being in decline as a business are actually ... sasdly ... not really too interested anymore ... COME BACK LUIS!!!!!!!!!!

Having said that SLR did get me back the thick end of £200,000K. It just annoys that the thieves at Trampolin are largely home free and getting away with the theft of hundereds of clients money and savings. Regards and good luck to you all ... Andrew Wilford

Did you win an award for interest as per Ley 57/68 and return of costs in your successful ruling Andrew ( which should act as disincentive to the Banks continuing ploys)?

Even recovery of awarded costs and interests however is proving yet a further major challenge for some in this ongoing scenario, where some are exposed to significant delays and exposure to yet more appeals relating to correctly backdated interests by the Banks.

Some are having to suffer separate further legal procedures for return of interest and costs according to Ley 57/68 requiring yet more judicial approvals and even then some have been exposed to additional enforcements procedures to get the Banks to even comply with the rulings and approvals. And sometimes questionable " errors" in court or Bank administrative processes can also lead to all manner of further compromising complications.

The whole legal scenario appears beset by Banks trying every which way to avoid compliance and take advantage of a system that sadly fails in its duty according to the rule of law to provide adequate resource to effect timely and fairly administered  justice.

There still appears a long way to go in this regard BUT it still needs emphasising that  ALL legal professionals via their Bar Associations should be pushing for greater court and judicial resources to protect not only their clients best interests but also the reputation of their own Spanish legal system. 

But then we come back to the Bar Associations requirement to adequately regulate and ensure that their own members adhere to ethical and deontological duties set by their own codes of conduct:.... already hotly debated elsewhere! 

And so the educative process continues and depends as you rightly point out on pioneers ( claimants and professionals alike) who remain willing to fight for not only individual rights according to existing law but also for a decent system of justice which has the potential to restore mutual trust and respect. We can only live in hope....
 

Hi ... YES ... I believe the Court ruling was for the Principle, Interest and Costs but because of the "pending appeal" only the Principle has been paid thus far. Knowing the speed at which the Courts and the Judiciary work in Spain I guess this will have to be added as a codicle in my Will for the benefit of my Great Great Grandchildren! As have indicated in my earlier post I have as much faith in the Spanish Legal System as I would have in a Chocolate Tea Pot! 

Unfortunately, we have just found out that the bank has won the appeal against the first judgement of our case & that the appeal judge has awarded the bank their costs, so we are now waiting to see where we go from here

Hi Gainsborough ... well only one thing I can say but bear in mind the age old maxim ... "CORRUPTION THY NAME IS SPAIN"! Just keep on fighting as I have done / am doing. I have won the Principle back and ... I think the interest (cannot remember) ... but the Bank (Cajamar) have appealed the ruling and they stand no chance. What really irks me is that the two "Thieves" who cost both myself and the Bank the money ... Martinez and Aguilera from Trampolin are still walking the streets free!

On what legal principle did the Bank win the appeal?

What Supreme Court judgement did they quote?

Have you been informed of exactly how the appeal judge reached the decision in favour of the bank?

Your legal team should be keeping you informed. Each case is determined on specific grounds depending on what SC doctrine has been achieved, so sometimes generalising can be deceptive.

Good Morning Ads ... thank you for your response ... slight missunderstanding between us I am afraid ... the Bank (Cajamar) have NOT won the Appeal ... or rather the appeal to the appeal but this has now gone to the main "Big Boys Court" in Madrid and it will be heard God know's when ... years away probably! They have appealed "simply because they can" I guess and / or because they feel that in some way they are victims of Trampolin and it's Owners also. However ... within my payments I complied precisely with the requirements of LEY57/68 so I really don't expect them to win ... maybe they hope I will die before this is all over!

Hi Andrew,

So in Gainsborough's case it sounds a different scenario as he did lose his appeal.

On occasions the Bank can appeal a provincial appeal court ruling that has gone against them and submit their appeal to the SC in Madrid, but then at the last minute just prior to it being heard ( admitted) they can pull their SC appeal ( in full knowledge that their appeal was not sound) which is just a ploy to delay justice being done.

And it would appear there is no accountability when they do this, unless the lower provincial appeal court judge can then reassess costs and interest relating to the additional timeframe suffered by the claimant. This can delay justice by years! It basically never got to the point where the Bank appeal could be judged as being sound or not and set precedence for other claimants to benefit from.

Does your legal team know if  additional interest and any related costs can be subsequently reclaimed to act as disincentive if the Bank attempt this ploy of pulling their SC appeal at the last minute prior to admittance?

The reason why Banks use this ploy is so that they can delay any SC doctrine being established in favour of claimants under Ley57/68, which could help all other claimants awaiting justice. The outcome leaves provincial appeal court judges in limbo so to speak, so long as elements of doubt exist which is what the Banks are exploiting in such instances.

It would appear that Doctrine is only achieved when TWO successful SC rulings are achieved relating to the same specific legal detail being appealed against. 

It's a minefield of process complexity I'm afraid!

It would appear a complete disgrace and ongoing abuse of the Spanish Judicial system by the Banks, especially at a time when the justice system is overloaded and under resourced ( and now sadly also being further impacted by strikes). 
The banks in all too many cases appear to have purposefully overloaded the Spanish Justic system with instances such as this in their attempts to delay and disincentive claimants.
 

Mal intent at its worst it would appear and does the Spanish system of justice no favours, or all the professionals working within the system for that matter, presumably leading to the reason why judges etc are striking, so long as the legal system remains under resourced.
 

But then the catch 22 scenario applies where we all have to recognise that the longer the SC fail to provide supportive doctrine to provide full clarity for the judges, the more likely it is that the Banks will continue their ploys of proliferating appeals in this way.....

Andrew.

P.s. You might be interested in this thread which touches upon delays/ strikes and queries relating to Interest. It would appear that the courts are sitting on monies deposited by the Banks into their accounts, and the delays and strikes are now compromising this scenario even further for successful claimants.

https://www.eyeonspain.com/forums/posts-long-25152.aspx

Once the monies are deposited by the Banks into the courts safe keeping then understandably the Banks no longer remain accountable for any ongoing interest. 

The question remains however, are the courts holding onto monies already deposited by the Banks longer than necessary to subsidise their under funding? Or is the court administration system just completely overwhelmed? 

And exactly how much of this compromising scenario is born from Banks intent to purposefully delay the ability to gain SC doctrine, which would ironically relieve the system of justice in Spain from a major portion of appeals that are clogging up the system? 

Gainsborough,

Has your legal team advised you of how the Bank won their appeal and on what basis?

The reason I ask is that Maria de Castro back in 2020 was pointing out an anomaly that related to purchasers being classed as " investors" according to a SC ruling and her assessment that the requirement for the burden of proof should be in the hands of the Banks and not the purchaser according to Ley 57/68.

See thread https://www.eyeonspain.com/forums/posts-long-25033.aspx

So I wonder if your legal team have assessed this and if this plays any part in the Bank winning their appeal or perhaps this is unrelated to your case?

Just a thought.

p.s. Also if relevant take a look at this thread relating to "investor status"

https://www.eyeonspain.com/community-forum/35398/retrieving-off-plan-deposit-from-sabadell-bank.aspx

This message was last edited by ads on 7/3/2023.

Hi, after some time away from all of this I finally contacted Maria at Costaluz, sent her all my paperwork.  I got nothing back from her for 3 years so chased her last week and got this reply.  Seems I am not even getting off the starting blocks.  Did anyone else pay their deposit to Palmera Properties or just me?  Looks like my money is gone for good.
 

Dear Sarah, 

Thank you for contacting us. I have reviewed the documentation sent to us a while ago. 

I am sorry but in your case it is not possible to submit a claim against the bank because you paid although Palmera Properties. 

To submit a claim against the bank it is mandatory to have evidence of payments received in the developer bank account and to have the contract cancelled  because the developer did not deliver the property at time. 

I am sorry for providing this information. 

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.