Unpaid Communal Fees

Tadd what you are identifying is a system that appears biased and divisive which is sadly  self defeating for Spain because as you have identified it only results in alienation and distrust in the realities associated with communal living in Spain.

Once again it needs to be stressed that it doesn't have to be like this so it's essential to seek out mechanisms to regain trust.

Only when such mechanisms are established will this ever be resolved.

P.s.  I have asked this question before but perhaps worth repeating, why have a system that relies so heavily on litigation (further exacerbating the justice system) to deal with problems AFTER the event, when mandatory payment of debt at point of sale and swift enforceable fines acting as deterrent would significantly help, not only struggling communities, but also restore faith in community living in Spain. 

message was last edited by ads on 08/07/2016.

Just been advised by our Administrator that withholding keys to stairwells leading to garage and remotes for electric doors may be illegal.

..........

Ha ha, I just love this.

A buyer purchases a property directly from the bank, which had not registered the property in its name despite repossession in 2015.

The bank does not inform the buyer that there are Community and probably EUCC debts.

The buyers lawyer does not insist on seeing a debt certificate and does not enquire on behalf of his client if the property is debt free.

The Notary Public, a government appointed legal official does not insist on seeing a debt certificate before transferring the ownership free of debt.

There is no alternative other than the Community to take legal proceedings against the new buyer, who has inherited the debt, which cannot commence until approved by owners at an AGM.

But there is no regulation or authority which can censure the bank, the lawyer and the Notary.

In the first instance,

How corrupt is this system?

In the second instance

The Community and President risks a legal challenge from the buyer, who still owes a debt to the Community if the Community does not issue keys to stairwells or remotes to garages, which of course are both regarded as legal necessities and basics in Spain, but we are permitted to withhold the use of leisure facilities such as pools, which was an idea generated by the Community anyway.

So the Community can't sue for the debt until after an AGM but the buyer can sue the Community for withholding basic needs such as garage remotes and stairwell keys.

How absurd is this country?

Do I hear " this is Spain?"

I am tempted to hand the file immediately to a debt collection agency who do not need AGM approval.

I am also tempted to ignore this advice and prevent any keys being distributed, I am not denying use of the facilities owned by the buyer, I am merely not permitting access through Community property.

But do feel non use of pools maybe enough to get some action.

I assume we have informed the buyer of this action.

Dear Maria 

Please can you advise is it now a legal obligation for the notary to insist upon a debt certificate prior to sale and is this  failure (and collusion ) considered a fraudulent activity?

A little more info on how some banks get away with it.

Would love to see any input from Maria.

.................................

Although it may sounds amazing, this property has been sold with no Legal Advisor on the Buyers’ side, what, I suppose, made the job easier to the Seller.

The main problem seems to be that Notaries  are now used to including in Title Deeds that no Debt Certificate is delivered in that moment and the Buyer does accept it. In addition , a ‘standard’ paragraph (always seen when Buildingcenter is the Seller) stating that ‘if there is any debt the Seller would be liable if the Buyer is required to pay by the Community of Owners’.

It might be legal, quite not sure because I´m not a Lawyer, but it is definitively outrageous.

Once again , be completely sure that we will get this money back to the Community and EUCC  , but it is really frustrating to spend so much time to make this kind of firms fulfill their obligations.

So the solution to debt collection with regard to property  sales would be mandatory provision of debt certificate together with mandatory proof of payment of that debt at point of sale, which would eliminate the need for further litigation on the part of communities? Is that correct Hugh?

And this would immediately make Banks accountable ( and individual sellers for that matter), whilst also freeing up court and judicial resources so overstretched at this moment in time. It also would go some way to restoring faith in community living in Spain, although still a swift solution required to resolve  ongoing debt collection ( as opposed to at point of sale).

Would this work Maria?

Couldn't have put it better myself ads.

Of course sensible mandatory legislation would make life much easier for buyers, Communitues and probably everyone other than banks and the legislature.

But as we all know effective or efficient regulation does not really exist, everything gets referred back to an overworked but financially very successful legal system.

Spain is not noted for its negotiative abilities, it would rather wait for the legal challenge process.

Our legal advice.

.............................

A good and independent buyer´s lawyer would have not allowed this to happen. That´s why we insist on reasoning about the importance of lawyers when buying and selling a house in Spain. Notaries never play the lawyer´s role.

http://www.costaluzlawyers.es/services/property-services/conveyancing/

The problem is that the system allows buyers to pick up cheap deals directly from banks and are persuaded an independent lawyer would cost more and that everything will be alright because if the Community notices we will eventually settle the debt.

in the case quoted, the bank have indeed settled the debt after much pressure on them from the buyer having threatened legal action via EGM against the new buyer.

2. Can you confirm that the Community cannot make a legal claim against the new owner for the debt until approved at an AGM or EGM?

  This is clearly established in Spanish Property Law.

If the proceedure for dealing with debtors has been voted on and agreed at a previous AGM does each individual case still have to go to an EGM or AGM?

Is there any dufference between new and established owners in this respect?

This message was last edited by tteedd on 22/07/2016.

Approval to sue all debtors must be agreed at an AGM or EGM and the approval is only for the figure presented to the Community either at year end in the case of an AGM or an updated figure at an EGM.

It cannot be blanket approval to sue for any future debtors or debts.

This is why many Spaniards know that little or no action can be taken until after year end, so they can all build up a years debt then settle just before an AGM to vote if they wish.

It is not just many spaniards but many owners of all nationalities do this

Yes but you can appoint a debt collection agency to start work in UK without AGM approval so UK debtors can be chased quicker but and court action would have to await approval.

You can also put a surcharge on late payment.

Yes you can but I think also has to be approved by owners.

Only problem is , if you can't get the fees, you may well have problems getting the surcharge out of stubbirn or difficult debtors.

Our Community has found it much better to increase the fees, so banks and debtors will have to fork out more eventually  but them offer sizeable discounts to owners who pay on time.

This has increased our payment on time ratio from 65% to 85%

All Communities though will suffer the serial debtors who are untraceable, or bankrupt or have no assets, in this case you must write off some or all of the debt.

For UK debts, any debt collection agency will add 20% for their fees plus fairly high court and collection costs, if necessary.

We had one UK debtor in High Court in UK who ended up having to pay almost twice the debt due to the various charges and interest. It is stupid not trying to negotiate a deal.

In the case quoted below, I believe it was threatening the new buyer with suing plus charges that got him to chase the bank to pay the outstanding fees. All sorted but a difficult process, which should be easy if the law was sensible.