First occupation licence

Tish

Well nothing to concern yourself with then is there.

Gosh any development which are apartments and should be town houses wont stand a chance and alongside your observation that the A.S cant possibly apply to this development then the Judge will rule in favour of the purchasers.

Seems so silly that such a straight forward case like this even reaches court. and will be impossible to rule against..

Dan

I agree with your sarcasm Dan., except to say I'm not worried . I'm  genuinely interested in helping  people when asked, if and when I can,

Your facade that you put on on SPI slips on EOS  does it.?

Hi Tish

Sarcasm appears warranted when many have to rely on justice in the Spanish legal system.

In this instance you have posted direct information regarding a development where I have a property and I have not argued against it. let the future reveal the outcome as to what facts are involved and as long as people get the help they need then thats all that matters.

Thankfully many think I add value and suprised by your out burst. as the only vendetta I have is against those that are against the ones I try to help everyday and like you I am genuinely interested in helping whereever I can even if someone dosent agree with it..

From information I have September appears a time when hopefully issues surrounding A.S and habitation liceneces may start to get resolved

Just Dan

Hi Smiley

No problems,just postings get read wrong at times.

Very emotive issues the A.S and Habitation Licence issues as this is not a game and everyone must get advice relating to their case.

From the information I have advice being given on this development could very well be wrong and all very well if its not your money.

Now is not the time to continue to attack a particular developer or development on this issue as many rulings are going in the favour of the developer and he in turn he is claiming backdated interest to where the Judge has ruled the property as being legal i.e 2006

Developers are also attempting to claim back Managment Fees.Service Charges as they feel the piper should be paid and they have won the case.

I am not saying that anyone should complete without the paperwork.habitation licence etc but they must get the advice on their case as to what will happen when developers go bust.or cant pay on a ruling.

On the better developments there are many in the know ?waiting to snap a bargain at the expence of those loosing deposits.

Just a messenger with a very good friend as a solicitor in Marbella who gives me all the goss and vents her frustration just how hopeles she feels at times with the legal system in Spain

Respect your postings Smiley as they are very informative,

Regards

Dan

WHOOPS

Pressed twice

Just Dan

Hi everyone,

We are waiting to hear from our solicitor whether the builder is prepared to give a  full Bank Guarantee in exchange of  us signing the deeds  because there is no FLO in place.  We only had a  bank guarantee for first stage payment and that was a struggle to get that   It was only dated till January this year, but I read on another forum that dates are not considered valid in the supreme courts - a builder cannot date the guarantee.

However we are only protected for half of what we have paid so far, because he would not offer the B/G on the other stage payments.  One can only presume the reason is a cost that the builder does not want to incurr.  HOWEVER READING INFORMATION -  BY LAW THE BUILDER SHOULD OFFER  THE GUARANTEE, BEFORE THE CONTRACTS ARE SIGNED ON OFF-PLAN SALES. 

So now if the builder refuses to extend the guarantee against full payment we are in a no win situation.  He sits waiting for us to sign  to get his final payment  and we wont until we get the FLO -  he cannot sell to anyone else as we have paid him half  already .  So we sit without a house and money paid toward a property that is no good to us or him . 

The only way we can protect our money  without the FLO is through the BANK GUARANTEE ,  maybe the town halls should fund the cost of the guarantee and not penalize the builder (and us) when they cause the delay.  Or what about the town hall doing what our councils do, send build inspectors out through stages of the build and sign off each stage.  Another suggestion - the architect takes some responsibility - where he signs off the build stating all is completed and to specifications - with that the town hall issue the FLO.   Later on if anything is found to be not acceptable the homeowner makes a claim against the architects insurance .

I cannot speak for everyone else but why should anyone have to go to court to move forward - with some small changes things could be easily resolved.  At present the only resolution is to ask for your money back - and that means going to court.

Surely this should not be about getting money back and paying out more money into the legal systems  (to make the country richer i.e. the courts the taxes etc etc...) - we, like many, wanted a property in the sun.  We go throught the process of hiring lawyers to check the building process so why do we feel we should have to throw the towel in just because we are not being given the FLO.

We wait so long for the build it seems crazy.  We need  to turn a negative situation to a positive one and  not be deprived of our new homes just because the town hall cannot get their act together.  If solicitors have done their jobs correctly, then we should believe the FLO will be granted .  Maybe as I said above - the town halls  are the ones who need to offer compensation or bank  guarantees as they issued the building licence in the first place, it should be  presumed automatically  that if a build licence was honoured then so should be the FLO unless there is an exceptional situation where the builder has constructed a faulty build - although saying that look what happened to the campasol development it was on tv the other night  some peoples houses are to dangerous to live in????? Going with my architect suggestion would resolve this.

No matter how long it takes if they are behind on issuing the licences, why should we suffer and believe the only way out is to fight for getting our money back.  Obviously  there are  exceptions for the folk who have been conned and only know later  their builds are definitely illegal  then yes no other options,but if a town hall stamps the build licence then we should expect a stamped LFO to go with it  and not feel imtimidated because their legal systems fail .

hello, how is this matter going?? are there any news??? I dont want to complete without a FOL, but I don't know what to do... Any help??

Thanks

Carolina

 Never without a FOL. It is a very important right of yours when buying a house.

Thanks a lot for your replies,

Carolina

It is a distressing situation not having an FLO especially in these days of economic crisis, I know as our complex doesn't have one, yet we were issued with a building licence!!!! very strange, even more so as we compose of 7 Phases (2 not yet built, and 1 empty) yet 2 of the Phases have their FLO's, I cannot understand the logic behind it all as we come under the banner of a "macro community"....We have had no FLO for 10 YEARS , though we are fighting for ours on our Phase.

I feel so sorry for those who wish to sell their properties, cos unless you have a cash buyer, or a foreign mortgage or your property is a bank repossession, then no one can get a Spanish Mortgage on a property without an FLO.

I love living in Spain and spend my meagre pension in Spain but it would appear that none of this is appreciated. Take away this foreign investment, and Spain would have to revert back to the "olden days", the "Fat Cats"cannot have it all ways, there has to be some give and take.

Mo

We purchased in 2007 & completed in 2008, one month later the builder ceased to trade inder the umbrella of the property we had purchased. An 2 bed Apt on a complex of over 40 Units. 2015 we are still waiting for the Habitation Certificate and several items the Builder did not complete. Road is not Built, Lift has not worked since 2008, NO individual meters for the Electricity, this means the High community fee covered all the residents, several had not paid any since they moved in.

YOU NEED BOTH THE F.O.L & THE HABITATION CERTIFICATE.

Our situation to date. We did have a lawyer to help us through the Purchase. Atlas recomended them, They were not  good lawyers as they told lies and did not imnform us of the problems with the site, The Agents were only after a sale and not interested in the individual purchaser.  8 years and parts of the complex have not been completed, 3 of the original community of 11 non national owners have sold. Unsure how because there is no Habitation Certificate, Sold at less than half the original cost.

We have suffered several squatters and the Builders Tenants who never paid for the utility usage, caused much damage to the complex & invited their many friends to use the Pool and parking area, Repairing vehicles and leaving the broken vehicle rubbish behind when they moved out.

2015, much of the damage has been repaired and we still wait for the local council to grant theHabitation Certificate, until this happens the Local police will not help, us if they are needed for any reason.

BEFORE YOU COMPLETE THE PURCHASE OF A PROPERTY MAKE SURE YOU HAVE THE HABITATION CERTIFICATE AS WELL AS THE F.O.L.

We have paid a large community fee each month, now €1000 a year + the sumo & local taxes. Have paid the debt of the Builder for the Utility he used, to build the property. without which the Electricity was cut off.

Warning don't pay the builder any cash for the installation of the Meters, ours took €900 from each owner. we still have no individual meters. Pay an extra charge for a temporary meter + usage. Taking the builder to court has so far 6 years and still not action taken in the Spanish Courts.

WE NOW HAVE A LIVE IN CARETAKER at a cost but feel happier that squatters find it much harder to squat.

Oh, dear, poedoe. I'm assuming it's Atlas/Aroca/TU and possibly the Bosque de las Lomas area?

Complete crooks from start to finish. Fly380 on here has documented the tale of woe about this place. The town hall at Orihuela Costa is also as useful as a chocolate fireguard and too busy infighting to help (but still take the taxes).

The notaries in Torrevieja are well aware of the problems and allow the sale without the LFO provided the seller deposits a sum to cover the cost if the town hall ever gets round to it. These have been "imminent" for over 13 years. TU also took out mortgages on the land despite the full price being paid. 

As I said, crooks the lot of them.

This acts as a classic example of what a purchaser can be subjected to without an FOL in place and as such Maria identified "Never without a FOL. It is a very important right of yours when buying a house."

I wonder in Poedoe's case why are the Town Hall not issuing the FOL/habitation licence? Is it because the land their apartments have been built upon has been subsequently deemed illegal in some form by regional authorities (as opposed to local authorities)? Or is it that the developer has failed to follow the correct legal procedures for certain areas of the land within the complex to built upon? Or is this just down to administrative delays on the Town Hall's part?

In general however, and given the above risks, and the fact that developers have breached contracts leading to all manner of compromising issues as previously discussed, then I would ask the question why are the Supreme Court not recognising that all off-plan purchasers who have been requested to complete on a property without FOL in place (according to the completion date mutually agreed within the purchase contract), are not automatically having their inalienable rights recognised, thus making them eligible for return of their monies according to Ley 57/68? The law intended to protect purchasers from such abuses.

Why, as the compromsing facts become known, are time constraint provisos being placed on those who try to subsequently fight for justice, especially when such time constraints are not equally in place to protect the purchaser from major compromising court/judicial delays within the justice system. This inequality relating to time constraints surely is another abuse of the rule of law is it not?

Or, for those purchasers who have completed and where it is subsequently deemed illegal land/build (in total ignorance of these compromising issues... through no fault of their own), and who wished to retain their properties following developers insolvency/administration, (having spent monies such as Poedoe has identified), that legal pressure is now not being brought to bear (accountability) on all those who did not act with due diligence in this conveyancing process, i.e. the Notaries, the conveyancing lawyers, the Town Halls who turned a blind eye to the illegalities? Why should innocent purchasers be continually made to pay the price for other "parties" negligence, in a chaotic process of conveyancing that harboured these abuses and who through their negligence have taken no responsibility in this sorry saga of events?

It's time that the Spanish Supreme Court recognised these uncomfortable realities and made all efforts to address these injusticies in a fair and equitable manner, and take all necessary action to consistently safeguard the rule of law in Spain.

Also it's time that the Spanish Government take action to ensure that these administrative nightmares are swiftly resolved (disincentives via the imposition of fines?), and where applicable, that fair compensation is paid to those purchasers who are in effect "pawns" in this equation.

Otherwise, it will be sadly perceived by all those who wish to invest in Spain, that the risks associated with purchase in Spain are so great as to be prohibitive, if the Supreme Court ultimately fail to demonstrate a consistent approach to protect purchasers inalienable rights according to existing law.

Poedoe:

Are you paying a mortgage?

Hi Maria,

Unfortunately our postings crossed so I would be very grateful for your observations on the points that I raised below.

I so feel for Poedoe in this circumstance as they have done everything by the book, only to be subjected to awful abuse, and this should be used as a classic example to bring before the authorities, should it not?

Only when the realities / subsequent impacts associated with ongoing abuses of this nature that arise from the non issuance of FOL according to the mutually agreed dates within the purchase contract, become fully recognised by both the Supreme Court and The Spanish Government, will trust be restored in the Spanish conveyancing and justice system.

To place retrospective provisos on existing law, without full recognition of all the facts that place innocent purchasers at risk in this way, will be perceived by many as highly questionable. This law providing inalienable rights facilitated off plan purchase and to subsequently deny purchasers these inalienable rights is surely injust is it not?

Many thanks for all your ongoing endeavours, Maria.

Ads:

Thanks as always for your observations and nice comments about our efforts.

Please have answers below in bold green:

This acts as a classic example of what a purchaser can be subjected to without an FOL in place and as such Maria identified "Never without a FOL. It is a very important right of yours when buying a house."

I wonder in Poedoe's case why are the Town Hall not issuing the FOL/habitation licence? Is it because the land their apartments have been built upon has been subsequently deemed illegal in some form by regional authorities (as opposed to local authorities)? Or is it that the developer has failed to follow the correct legal procedures for certain areas of the land within the complex to built upon? Or is this just down to administrative delays on the Town Hall's part? I cannot know in this particular case. A general answer is that First Occupation Licenses are not granted when buildings do not fit to the project which was granted the building license.

In general however, and given the above risks, and the fact that developers have breached contracts leading to all manner of compromising issues as previously discussed, then I would ask the question why are the Supreme Court not recognising that all off-plan purchasers who have been requested to complete on a property without FOL in place (according to the completion date mutually agreed within the purchase contract), are not automatically having their inalienable rights recognised, thus making them eligible for return of their monies according to Ley 57/68? The law intended to protect purchasers from such abuses. Supreme Court can just pass Court decissions on matters rightly brought to them. 

Why, as the compromsing facts become known, are time constraint provisos being placed on those who try to subsequently fight for justice, especially when such time constraints are not equally in place to protect the purchaser from major compromising court/judicial delays within the justice system. This inequality relating to time constraints surely is another abuse of the rule of law is it not? I am sorry but cannot understand that question.

Or, for those purchasers who have completed and where it is subsequently deemed illegal land/build (in total ignorance of these compromising issues... through no fault of their own), and who wished to retain their properties following developers insolvency/administration, (having spent monies such as Poedoe has identified), that legal pressure is now not being brought to bear (accountability) on all those who did not act with due diligence in this conveyancing process, i.e. the Notaries, the conveyancing lawyers, the Town Halls who turned a blind eye to the illegalities? We are studying several cases like this. I guess there must be many other lawyers doing the same. Why should innocent purchasers be continually made to pay the price for other "parties" negligence, in a chaotic process of conveyancing that harboured these abuses and who through their negligence have taken no responsibility in this sorry saga of events? I fully agree they should not suffer these unfair situations.

Supreme Court passed a recent Court decission on null developers second mortgages over off plan buyers properties:

http://www.eyeonspain.com/blogs/costaluz/14342/legal-tip-1252-new-nullity-of-mortgage-contracts-by-the-supreme-court.aspx

It's time that the Spanish Supreme Court recognised these uncomfortable realities and made all efforts to address these injusticies in a fair and equitable manner, and take all necessary action to consistently safeguard the rule of law in Spain.

Also it's time that the Spanish Government take action to ensure that these administrative nightmares are swiftly resolved (disincentives via the imposition of fines?), and where applicable, that fair compensation is paid to those purchasers who are in effect "pawns" in this equation.

Otherwise, it will be sadly perceived by all those who wish to invest in Spain, that the risks associated with purchase in Spain are so great as to be prohibitive, if the Supreme Court ultimately fail to demonstrate a consistent approach to protect purchasers inalienable rights according to existing law.

Maria, thank you as ever for your replies.

Please find my observations and ongoing queries highlighted and underlined in bold red.

Ads:

Thanks as always for your observations and nice comments about our efforts.

Please have answers below in bold green:

This acts as a classic example of what a purchaser can be subjected to without an FOL in place and as such Maria identified "Never without a FOL. It is a very important right of yours when buying a house."

I wonder in Poedoe's case why are the Town Hall not issuing the FOL/habitation licence? Is it because the land their apartments have been built upon has been subsequently deemed illegal in some form by regional authorities (as opposed to local authorities)? Or is it that the developer has failed to follow the correct legal procedures for certain areas of the land within the complex to built upon? Or is this just down to administrative delays on the Town Hall's part? I cannot know in this particular case. A general answer is that First Occupation Licenses are not granted when buildings do not fit to the project which was granted the building license.

The conveyancing system should never allow purchasers to complete without FOL/habitation licence in place and for this to be an ongoing scenario by some who turn a blind eye to this requirement, only demonstrates how the existing system in Spain is inconsistent and significantly flawed.

Why  are there no discentives in place to counter this compromising scenario (ring fenced fines/regulators) and why is there no procedure identified for financially compensating those who have been subjected to negligence of this order, funded perhaps by ring fenced fines?

More importantly why are the authorities not taking a firm stand to prohibit notaries from continuing with these illegal acts? (criminal offence?)  Has anyone identified how many properties in Spain are currently owned but remain without FOL’s/habitation licences?

In general however, and given the above risks, and the fact that developers have breached contracts leading to all manner of compromising issues as previously discussed, then I would ask the question why are the Supreme Court not recognising that all off-plan purchasers who have been requested to complete on a property without FOL in place (according to the completion date mutually agreed within the purchase contract), are not automatically having their inalienable rights recognised, thus making them eligible for return of their monies according to Ley 57/68? The law intended to protect purchasers from such abuses. Supreme Court can just pass Court decissions on matters rightly brought to them.

Maria – Unfortunately this does not appear to be the case, as there is currently no guarantee that the SC will admit a lawsuit for review as this is subject to financial constraint applicability criteria The SC have denied admittance for consideration for a case where contra legem ruling was issued by an appeal court that overruled successful first instance court ruling which fully recognised a purchasers rights and complied with their inalienable rights. This denial of admission to have cases heard in effect denies purchasers the right to have these matters “rightly brought to them”. Isn’t there also the need for at least two SC rulings required on exactly the same principle of law, before judges can be instructed to consistently comply with their rulings? How long is this going to take given the current state of the Spanish Justice system? This leads one to conclude, given this scenario, that there is even inconsistency by the SC when deciding on matters that should be “rightly brought to them”. What message does that send to those striving for justice in Spain? This legal lottery should be resolved and where applicable be brought to the attention of the European Commission.

Why, as the compromsing facts become known, are time constraint provisos being placed on those who try to subsequently fight for justice, especially when such time constraints are not equally in place to protect the purchaser from major compromising court/judicial delays within the justice system. This inequality relating to time constraints surely is another abuse of the rule of law is it not? I am sorry but cannot understand that question.

Sorry to confuse you Maria.

Time constraints do not appear to be equally applied in the Spanish Justice system, as there are NO time constraints in place to ensure purchasers receive timely justice (as demonstrated by all too many subjected to years of delays from court delays / awaiting judicial rulings). Whereas there appear to be many time constraints on claimants legal teams to respond swiftly to rulings or whether to proceed to higher levels of justice etc (for instance is it 20 days to decide if proceeding to SC?)…

I seem to remember Keith pointing out these inequalities of time constraints (or lack of) many years ago!

It appears to be one rule for claimants (purchasers defending their inalienable rights) and another rule for defendants (Banks / developers in conjuction with non independent lawyers) who have used all manner of ploys in the interim lengthy time periods to try and deny innocent purchasers of their inalienable rights…. asset stripping, illegal extensions, non provision of FLOs according to mutually agreed end dates in the purchase contracts, non provision of individual BG’s,  to name but a few. Hence my reference to inequalities within the system of Justice in Spain, which appear, sadly, to be to the detriment of innocent purchasers fighting for their INALIENABLE rights.

Or, for those purchasers who have completed and where it is subsequently deemed illegal land/build (in total ignorance of these compromising issues... through no fault of their own), and who wished to retain their properties following developers insolvency/administration, (having spent monies such as Poedoe has identified), that legal pressure is now not being brought to bear (accountability) on all those who did not act with due diligence in this conveyancing process, i.e. the Notaries, the conveyancing lawyers, the Town Halls who turned a blind eye to the illegalities? We are studying several cases like this. I guess there must be many other lawyers doing the same. Why should innocent purchasers be continually made to pay the price for other "parties" negligence, in a chaotic process of conveyancing that harboured these abuses and who through their negligence have taken no responsibility in this sorry saga of events? I fully agree they should not suffer these unfair situations.

Maria as you are aware I have been asking for years now that good lawyers be proactive in reporting back these unfair situations to the “powers that be”….. all manner of instances of injustices relating to the impact of compromising delays, of compromising negligencies, of inconsistent judicial rulings and inconsistent administrative procedures, of lack of disincentives to act as corrective measures, of the need for effective regulatory bodies to oversee Banks, conveyancing lawyers, notaries, of the need for a more standardised regulated approach to conveyancing in Spain etc.

But we (citizens) have no means to access how the various councils (such as the GCJP or Lawyers Councils) comply with “transparency”, nor are we able to see what corrective measures are being taken to address these many “unfair situations”, or indeed where in Spain are the “overstretched courts/judges”, or where in Spain innocent purchasers are being subjected to inconsistent or contra legem appeal rulings or lack of FOL’s according to terms within purchase contracts etc. Only when these facts are consistently reported back by credible legal representatives can they be effectively monitored and addressed by those responsible for safeguarding the rule of law in Spain.

It sadly appears to many that action to report back these compromising issues is not being consistently reported. It should not be for individuals (many of whom do not have the legal knowledge or credibility) to report back these compromising facts. It should be reported by legitimate and well respected lawyers who represent their clients and who should be following through to ensure credible statistics can be identified and from which the authorities will be better placed to adequately safeguard the rule of law.  

 What is concerning is the fact that case law has taken a decade (or more) to date to be established with regard to Ley 57/68 (and still ongoing), but SC rulings upon which the judiciary are directed, do not appear to be impacting those who have been unfairly subjected to contra legem or inconsistent rulings during this lengthy interim time period, allowing the Banks to continue their ploys to avoid responsibility. These offplan purchasers have been (and still are) being used as scapegoats/pawns in this equation. Likewise, for that matter, are those suffering the crippling consequences from lack of licences.

Those who pioneered recognition of inalienable rights or brought the facts relating to illegal builds/ or the implications of FOLs not being granted according to mutually agreed dates need to have their rights fully respected and not be subjected to yet further denial of recognition of their rights.

We are all incredibly frustrated and angry at being the pawns in this scenario and being made the scapegoats for lack of timely justice with full recognition of INALIENABLE rights and lack of recognition of the impact that these compromising failures within the Spanish conveyancing system are having on innocent citizens lives.

And the irony is that in terms of Ley 57/68, Keith Rule identified YEARS AGO of the need for efficient effective specialised court(s) to handle the thousands of instances (thus hopefully eliminating inconsistent rulings). What a terrible waste of resource to block up the justice system in this manner and in the process allow the Banks to continue to deny their responsibilities relating to purchasers inalienable rights. The SC and judges remark on the need to examine the “good faith” of purchasers…….I would suggest they need to exmine the good faith of developers/ Banks in this whole scenario.

By failing to recognise the need for greater efficiency and speedy CONSISTENT accountability by developers/Banks,  it has sadly done a grave disservice to the system of justice in Spain.

Supreme Court passed a recent Court decission on null developers second mortgages over off plan buyers properties:

http://www.eyeonspain.com/blogs/costaluz/14342/legal-tip-1252-new-nullity-of-mortgage-contracts-by-the-supreme-court.aspx

It's time that the Spanish Supreme Court recognised these uncomfortable realities and made all efforts to address these injusticies in a fair and equitable manner, and take all necessary action to consistently safeguard the rule of law in Spain.

Also it's time that the Spanish Government take action to ensure that these administrative nightmares are swiftly resolved (disincentives via the imposition of fines?), and where applicable, that fair compensation is paid to those purchasers who are in effect "pawns" in this equation.

Otherwise, it will be sadly perceived by all those who wish to invest in Spain, that the risks associated with purchase in Spain are so great as to be prohibitive, if the Supreme Court ultimately fail to demonstrate a consistent approach to protect purchasers inalienable rights according to existing law.

_______________________

Maria L. de Castro, JD, MA