Lost our case against banco popular

That's a recognised assessment Brexit, I've no problem with those comments.  

I think that lumping the buyers into a category of beaches and bars is too simplistic though, I would say most people looking at purchasing off plan were planning for retirement or similar life changes, properties became more desireble where golf courses were included for that very reason.

To recap then, a contract is given, drawn up by a lawyer (not to be trusted?) and the promise of a bank guarantee to follow when the deposit is paid ( contract given to the purchaser first, no money on the day).  

There were no clues at first that it was the Wild West show with greed and lawlessness to follow, and no real consumer rights to rely on, and a slow legal system that is stacked against the consumer too.

its one thing for the consumers to debate and pontificate about the 'bad people' but Spain itself has lost out.  Lost revenue and profits from people settling, spending, integrating and encouraging others to follow.   So the greed of the few has denied the overall advance of the country in some ways and the courts tend to support the greedy few unless they have to face up to the laws that exist (and can be paid for).  

Brexit I dont know where you get this idea about billy brit from ,if you care to look at past forums from 10 12 years ago you will not find many purchaser bragging about the quick buck they were going to make ,the majority were exited about the new life they thought they were going to and planning for the future .Yes some of us had solicitors but ours informed us they were more into conveyancing laws and as soon as it went belly up to find solicitors that specialised in bankruptcy and that was what we did so please dont lump everyone together .

Exactly Georgie, some comments can get really condescending, you should see some of the private messages from one member to me about how stupid we might have been.

It seems its OK to blame the victims when it suits, there always seems to be a reason to try and defend the indifensible for some people.

Lets face facts, most people fell into the hands of crooks, then met more crooks, then have to defend against crooked procedures, then get delayed by crooks.

I dont think the people who exprienced this crap will get fooled again, but the system is set up for another wave when this one has died down.  Who says crime does not pay!!!!!!

I do feel sympathy for the victims in all this. They were vulnerable because it was a scenario that was beyond belief and imagination in what is supposed to be a civilised and law abiding EU member state.

Could anyone imagine this happening to immigrants or residents in the UK. There would be riots and civil disorder.

Supreme Court along with Burgos, Madrid, Málaga and Valencia Appeal Courts have Case law to deffend that buying 2 houses does not necessarily mean you are a professional investor.

Do not lose hope if a well defense has been brought to the Appeal Court!

Kind regards

Maria

I take issue with the 'gamble' aspect of this discussion that was raised. There was no gamble when buying a property, other than it might go down in value or not perform as well as it was expected - we KNEW that, that is obvious and only an idiot would EXPECT a sure fire profit. However, placing a deposit, and then a bunch of crooks STEALING your money, doesn't constitute a gamble. No one was gambling here, other than what could be expected from property values. And, no property has lost value over the long term (15+ years).

I take further issue with another suggestion that those who didn't use a lawyer are the ones who lost money. I would bet my house on it that 95%+ used a lawyer when buying/placing a deposit on an off plan. Why wouldn't you? Perhaps those with previous experience of buying a spanish property might not, but they must be in a minority, surely?

Fazarelli you are correct in what you say. It is only the jealousy brigade making these statements ‘’serves them right, they were greedy gamblers’’. Only because they could not or did not want to buy a new property off plan, which would have been superior to what they had.

So being a landlord in the UK with many properties to rent out is now classed as being 'Greedy' is it? or does that only apply to buying more then one in Spain, the original poster stated quite clearly they didn't want to be a greedy investor, I know many Spanish people with a few more then two house's, some they rent out, some they don't.

IMO I think the courts and the judges need  a wake up call

If anyone paying a deposit and entering into a contract where the other party fails to meet their obligations should have their deposit returned whether you are buying a single home or multiple houses for an investment.

Was  there a clause in the contract for investors?

No not in our contract Tadd, or any others.   But then again each contract is specific to each property and if your buying several properties, all contracts will be for just the one.

i don't have the full wording of Ley57/1968 but it's a case of how the law looks at the individual purchasers rather than the contract.   After all a contract can have unlawful things put in them, but unlawful things can't be enforced (I mean they can say if you don't pay us we will sell your wife, but it's not legal so they can't ha). 

If the law says it's only to protect individuals and not companies, the banks will go for a ruling of multiple buyers being companies (investors).  That's how I see it anyway.   That's why I said earlier it's important to have an individual bank account and not a company one, and not  register a contract as a company, that would be challenged I reckon.

The post of greedy individuals was mentioned by someone who likely has a jaundiced view unfortunately.   I think that can be ignored as a 'mental abhorration' by someone who was maybe getting a bit giddy, or is just mentally unstable.  

Our lawyer is making an appeal against the judgement but this could take. Another year , 

that will be a total of 15 years since we signed for the apartments of living in limbo . 

Im not confident of winning the appeal I will just be glad when it is finally concluded for good so 

I can move on . 

But you can be confident of paying more legal fees.

Since Case Law by the  Supreme Court has been established ( December 2015) on Banks liabilities for lack of guarantees in off plan purchases, costs are being imposed to Banks.

Since Case Law by the  Supreme Court has been established ( December 2015) on Banks liabilities for lack of guarantees in off plan purchases, costs are being imposed to Banks.

Dear Maria,

Do "costs" being imposed upon Banks include all court costs and fees associated with litigation, or just court costs? Clarification on this would be much appreciated.

Many thanks and kind regards.

Costs awarded by the Court are lawyer and court agent fees determined by that Court after proposal by each one of the parties in a final part of the procedure called interests ad costs liquidation.

Travelling, translations... costs are not included. 

Dear Maria,

With regard to award of costs as part of this final “interest and costs liquidation” procedure, are Banks now contesting costs as assessed by this procedure to the SC court, and if so on what grounds are they appealing?

There are different arguments banks are using for not being imposed legal costs. The most commun  one is the existence of doubts in either facts and/or legal basis of the case:

Supreme Court stated, back in April 2016 that costs can be imposed on banks, in cases where a general Bank Guarantee existed, since 23rd of September 2015.

Murcia Appeal Court Room 1 is not imposing  Appeal costs on banks arguing that doctrine on backdating of interests changed in Murcia in March 2017.   

Dear Maria,

I am a little confused by your observation “Murcia Appeal Court Room 1 is not imposing  Appeal costs on banks arguing that doctrine on backdating of interests changed in Murcia in March 2017. “

Could you please explain how is the backdating of interests related to appeal costs not being imposed on the banks in this instance? What is the legal reasoning behind this?

Many thanks.

Murcia Appeal Court number 1 understands that as they changed its criterium regarding backdating of interests in March 2017, every bank appealing for having a shorter interest period before that date, should not be imposed Appeal Legal fees by the Judge

Obviously, they are ignoring Supreme Court Decisions on backdating of interests to date of payment stating one year before ( March 2016)

If we were the lawyers of one of those cases, we would naturally, advise our clients to go to Supreme Court.