I want my house

Banks release numbers of customers it has, so no break in confidentiality there.
NHS release numbers of patients it has in any hospital, surgery, etc.,  so no break in confidentiality there.
Solicitors release numbers of clients it has, so no brek in confidentiality there.
DVLA release numbers of drivers registered, cars taxed, etc.,  so no break in confidentiality there.
Census release population, so no break in confidentiality there.
SJ claims 1500 sold at SADN, so no break in confidentiality there.
Forum rules are that you should not ask personal details, so no problem there.
One very simple question:
How many members does SARC have - ("ask a question and if I can I will respond but not if it is of a confidential").
If it is claimed to be confidential, give it some credability and state would rule is breaking any confidentiality agreement.
No names are asked, no contact details requested, just one basic number.
1, 2, 3, .....up to 100.....up to 200.......up to 300......
Or over 751, which it has been claimed "not the minority".
Thanks in response to the anticipated nuber to be quoted. I am sure that Brianmags will appreciate that it will be of interest to many, and if 751+ I imagine that there will be a flood of others joining them?

Hi JA,
Your logic is flawed. The continuation of SADM will not be based on a "wet finger in the wind" gauge  of the viability of the project. I beleive that it will be on the refienacing of the project and the subsequent offering of new contracts to purchasers.

SARC and its campaigning does not harm the position of purchasers and infact does the opposite. The accusations and blame placing do not help the situation nor make the position of the purchasers any better.

We have been told that water is an issue and postings have now answered that ( plus all of the heavy rain )  we now have this bit about the suppliers. OH that was answered in the report written by Linda Neeedham where it is mentioned that the cost of materails have been contractually fixed for 3 years.

As for your remark about silly little games, I am surprised that you deride purchasers who are trying to protect their money and fight for a positive outcome. I think that was a very silly and misplaced remark.

Any way we should all have some news soon and hopefully it will be positive. if it is and purchasers are offered to continue with their purchase, I hope that they all think about why they wanted to be at SADM and decide they still want to be there. I also hope that those who wish to get their money back can do so with out too much cost and delay.

Me  I most definatly Want My House

All the best
Tony R17 18

Hi JA,
Your logic is flawed. The continuation of SADM will not be based on a "wet finger in the wind" gauge  of the viability of the project. I beleive that it will be on the refienacing of the project and the subsequent offering of new contracts to purchasers.

SARC and its campaigning does not harm the position of purchasers and infact does the opposite. The accusations and blame placing do not help the situation nor make the position of the purchasers any better.

We have been told that water is an issue and postings have now answered that ( plus all of the heavy rain )  we now have this bit about the suppliers. OH that was answered in the report written by Linda Neeedham where it is mentioned that the cost of materails have been contractually fixed for 3 years.

As for your remark about silly little games, I am surprised that you deride purchasers who are trying to protect their money and fight for a positive outcome. I think that was a very silly and misplaced remark.

Any way we should all have some news soon and hopefully it will be positive. if it is and purchasers are offered to continue with their purchase, I hope that they all think about why they wanted to be at SADM and decide they still want to be there. I also hope that those who wish to get their money back can do so with out too much cost and delay.

Me  I most definatly Want My House

All the best
Tony R17 18

JA, I agree with you 100% that purchasers offering support to the developer in an attempt to influence the Administration, certainly will not help the people wanting their money returned to them, but I suppose for those who think that there is a chance they could get a house (), they are prepared to try anything.Suppose they cannot be blamed, but if they are mis-quoting numbers of supporters, then surely that can't be legal?
The number of members SARC have maybe "irrelevant nonsense ", but I for one would like to know, in view of the comment that they are not in the minority, therefore, if correct they must have 751+ members, but yet again no reply to the simple question asked of SARC, as forecasted in my earlier posting.
Tony, do you know the area where you have paid for in part for a house, which you have not had?
It may have had heavy rain in the last week, but what is new about that?
Don't you realise they have rain every year.
It is the frequency of the rain, the ground conditions which allow quick drainage and lack of storage facilities that is the problem.
This has been explained to you by someone who has knowledge of such matters (not the local chap who has lived there years).
Will offer a wager no that despite the week's rain, there will be a shortage in six months time, without the additional 10,000 units being constructed.
If you believe that one week's rain is the answer to a long term problem, then at the risk of offending, you are proving what others say about you inability to learn and acknowlege to be correct.
Stop reading tabloids and start reading technical, it is not that hard and if you find it too difficult, call in the kid from the street again, who it was advised at the time could help you follow a link which you had so much difficulty with. Or was it someone else of similar capabilities?

Brianmags, any chance that you will honour the offer to reply to a question if asked?

I still can't believe that after so much grief, purchasers will risk more of their money with the developer.
At least if it goes sour again, they only have themselves to blame. (Personally, I dano't believe there is a chance of that happening though).

In this case I am also ignorant because I forgot how many times I actually asked for a BG and was always given excuses.  I would like to think that there is a special account somewhere.  I believe that if the agent does not inform you about a BG then the agent gets some money for  not  telling you (that is surely not right either).  I believe we are let down by the agent, the lawyer and the developer.  

Out of interest has anyone actually got a British Lawyer instead of a spanish one ?  

Regards 

Chrissie

To Fin   Yes , certain people have been made aware of the decision before it is made public. I am boring myself now but it is not good news .

Brianmags
 I am not angry and if I did not have a BG my only choice and wish would be to have my house indeed if  SJ's position was not so bad this may well still be my wish . As you have said many times people must ask themselves what it was they originally wanted and why. I would however be very wary of SJ's scruples and the position current owners on other SJ developments are in at the moment  , but yes with no BG my priority would ,  like yourselves  be to hope that my house was completed and that I could take possession of it ASAP . 
I do not and have never disputed your stand point  of course the best option for you and many others is to have their house, the only thing I have disputed and asked that you be more wary of is the honesty and integrity of SJ. I am genuinely very very angry about the way all of us have been treated . Never forget we were and are innocent European consumers this point is key to  all our futures and will prove the most important point in all of this.. To this end I have supported all affected  what ever they want  in the many letters I have sent to MEP's etc I want only  to raise awareness of our plight and at no time claimed  to represent all , just to give an account of and explain the situations we face.

John G 
in answer to your question ,In an ideal world the builder takes deposits and staged payments ,he places this money in an account with the bank. As the money is collected from purchasers it is placed in a purchasers /escrow/ secure  account .The bank on deposit of this money should then issue each purchaser with a BG for the amount of their payment .The bank should not issue the BG unless or until the said amount is lodged in the escrow account. At this time the law stipulates that the builder may not use money in this account for any purpose , other than essential building costs relating to the building of the property concerned . In an ideal world all money should remain in this account and the builder should finance the build with funds other than this account. As each property is completed the money for each deposit ,staged payment  and of course the final payment is then made available to the builders . At the same time the BG document  would be returned to the bank and the BG would be rendered null and void .At this point the  builder is entitled to use and  treat the money as company  income and use it as such. .At this point purchasers would complete on their property , receive their keys ,do their snagging check and surrendor their BG in return for their keys and title deeds .
Therefore John no,  if SJ have any money in secure accounts (unlikely) this money will be secured and accounted for with BGs.
Therefore there is no way of knowing or tracing where monies not secured by a BG went or are now. 
Money was moved about this company and it's subsidiaries with no proper accountability . Which is why when discussing this I only ref err to SJ. As it will become apparent that SJ and subsidiary companies are one and the same .When SJ go under they all will.

Chrissie It is all very well in hind sight but the minute (4 weeks after payment ) when BG was not forth coming we should have claimed breach of contract as in Spanish law any off plan builder is in breach of contract for not providing a BG at this time .If we knew then what we know now this is what we would have done ,doesn't make us stupid just  renders SJ dishonest and unlawful.

Your other question Chrissie,  I have for reasons I really can't discuss British lawyers, Spanish lawyers and UK Government Lawyers helping me on this. Yes we were all let down badly by agents, conveyancing lawyers ,and they could  in the future be held accountable ,although we must remember that in Spain these professionals are not as legally accountable for their actions as they are in the UK.
 
We all must remember that this may be a long road but we are only trying plan A and plan B right now we still have C,D,E and F up our sleeves .Don't give up yet.