¿Quien es ads?

Send ads a private message

Oh dear, this member hasn't provided any information yet.

ads's latest forum comments

13 Dec 2020 13:56:


I have just seen the following on Spanish Property Insight https://www.spanishpropertyinsight.com/2020/12/10/spanish-supreme-court-twists-interpretation-of-ecjs-ruling-on-irph-mortgage-index-in-favour-of-lenders/?utm_source=mailpoet&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=2020-12-13 with regard to IRPH mortgage clauses, and am concerned how this will now affect claimants whose legal teams have argued that Banks have acted abusively by not providing sufficient information from the outset.

In that article it identified that the SC had stipulated in this latest ruling that "they will no longer admit more IRPH appeals"!

Does this new ruling by the Supreme Court dated November 12th 2020 therefore now mean that clients will not be allowed to appeal to the SC in future in order to gain further clarification from the SC based upon ECJ rulings?

Does this mean that the SC have effectively blocked any ability for ECJ rulings to be considered going forward in this regard?

Does this now imply that the Spanish SC takes precedence over the ECJ?

Could this be considered a form of protectionist stance in favour of the Spanish Banks on the part of the SC, without allowing the due process of law to follow its full course, which presumably requires that ECJ rulings should be considered and acted upon?

Or does it mean that these ECJ rulings should be brought into the legal arguments from the outset by law firms defending their clients rights? In other words are they suggesting that wherever ECJ rulings apply as protection for clients and have not been brought as evidence to substantiate their claims, that this would be classed as new evidence and therefore not valid?

Do the implications of this  therefore go far wider than just this specific case relating to IRPH clauses, and have implications on all outstanding cases in the Spanish justice system that rely upon protective ECJ rulings?

Does this imply that all Spanish law firms have to be fully aware and competent in ECJ law/ rulings when defending their clients and how they impact the Spanish judicial system?

P.s. apologies the title of this thread should have read as "knowledge" and not " know". 😉


This message was last edited by ads on 13/12/2020.
Thread: Query re latest Supreme Court ruling on IRPH mortgage clauses and the impact on know of ECJ rulings

30 Nov 2020 21:55:

Dear Maria,

The only aspect that Banks appear to respond to is when they are made sufficiently financially accountable for their behaviour and disrespect of law in place to protect. At present it would appear that the final financial penalty is insufficient to act as EFFECTIVE deterrent against their continuing exploitative behaviour.

In the case of Ley 57/68 claims, costs are not always fully recoverable and interest is backdated but is not continued to the point of final rulings, which acts as little disincentive to continue with their ploys and "play the system of delays" and significantly overload the courts and justice system in that process.

The problem that many appear to have been exposed to is the way that banks, in full knowledge of SC rulings that took  years to achieve, continued to proliferate appeals which undermined courts ability to “cope” under the interim growing pressure, continuing to suggest elements of doubt until such time as SC doctrine was fully established ( requiring 2 SC rulings on the exact same point of law).

So final clarification of law (SC doctrine) with regard to return of principle monies took years to achieve following major proliferation of appeals, but then to witness a repeat of this purposeful "tactic " with regard to gaining clarification of correctly backdated interest became highly questionable. And all without recognition of specialised courts to fast track and assist, as called for by Keith Rule all too many years ago! 

Likewise to witness Bank submission of cassation appeal and then at the last minute withdraw their submission ( the detail of which was highly questionable from the outset) , again in full knowledge of how this significant delay subsequently compromised the innocent claimant, let alone the impact on those who follow, without “adequate” financial additional penalty to deter such exploitative behaviour I.e. in full recognition of bad intent, just beggars belief.

The “ relative “ monies involved to make Banks accountable are but small fry (comparatively small) to the Banks, but are significant to individual innocent claimants when they are left waiting in many cases a decade and a half for justice and rightful retrieval of all their monies, including interest and costs, when deposited monies ironically were supposedly protected from the outset under INALIENABLE rights according to law.

The Bank of Spain does not appear to have acted in any responsible way to act as regulator to ensure that their Banks remained compliant with law in place to protect, nor ensure that they adhere to their so called “ mission statements”, that to the common man gives the false impression upon reading the statements that they are to be trusted and are adhering to compliant rules. 

It’s hypocrisy of the highest order, and has done untold damage to trust  within the Spanish real estate industry. 

But the saddest aspect of all is that Banks have been allowed to undermine trust in the justice system itself.

The whole scenario needs review from a much higher perspective in terms of adequate financial penalties where innocents are no longer scapegoated in this scenario, and good law firms AND clients alike can reclaim trust both in one another and the whole sorry system.

The Banks should never be allowed to divide and rule in this manner where again they exploited vulnerabilities with hidden agendas by working with law firms who it transpired were also duped ( or in some cases transpired to be knowingly complicit) in their failures to provide legal BGs  ( non independence) as Banks purposefully turned blind eyes to such essential adherence to BG law with full adherence to safeguarding of deposited monies.

Their manipulative behaviour has done untold damage to trust which will sadly take years to overcome unless more is done to swiftly call for the Bank of Spain to act as effective regulator and the Government provide adequate resources in the interim, in the form of specialised courts for competent trusted and effective fast tracking of outstanding claims with timely  judicial enforcement.

In the interim, thank you for your patience to listen, to continue to educate, and willingness to seek out ways to improve the status quo. I hope and trust that those who have problems re communicating will also gain some understanding of the complex and highly procedural elements to achieve justice under the status quo, which accounts for all too many of the significant background delays associated with rightful  recovery of all of their entitled monies.

Stay safe and strong and good luck with all your continuing endeavours

Best regards.

Thread: CostaLuz Lawyers are the best

30 Nov 2020 15:46:

Of course for all those subjected to extraordinary delays of this order that undermines timely justice, is considered abhorrent ( and for that matter all exploitative behaviour that demonstrates bad intent on the part of the Banks that is in contradiction of consumer law) . But that is the point.
The rule of law demands that adequate resources be made available, with all due regard to administering and enforcement procedures to ensure justice prevails in a timely and fair manner. 
Hence the call for adherence to the rule of law in Spain to the benefit of ALL.

It goes without saying that so long as this exposed failure continues, that the majority of all purchasers, and not just those purchasing offplan, need to remain acutely aware of the call for "buyer beware".

There are sadly many others currently residing on developments, or who have mortgages, who have also been exposed to Bank's exploitative behaviour that challenges consumer law....

But having said that, it does not detract from supporting all those currently exposed to, and effectively defending interests  under this current scenario, and striving for effective solutions and fair accountability.

This message was last edited by ads on 30/11/2020.
Thread: CostaLuz Lawyers are the best

30 Nov 2020 10:54:

It's important not to conflate and confuse separate issues here.

Anyone who fails to recognise or fails to respect a protective GUARANTEE law in place from the outset to safeguard deposited monies with inalienable rights is on a very slippery slope to undermining the rule of law, let alone undermining trust in a Banking system. To turn blind eyes to such undermines the basis upon which trust and respect are established.

Likewise, anyone who chooses to ignore the wider aspects to the rule of law that identifies the need to adequately resource a justice system, to remain sufficiently independent, etc, runs the risk of undermining the ability to ensure justice prevails.

Its the basis upon which any civilised society can effectively and fairly function, but developing and nurturing trust and respect, lies at the heart of this. Not easy by any means!

Thread: CostaLuz Lawyers are the best

29 Nov 2020 11:28:

Yes Kavanagh many purchasers were oblivious to the SCALE of greed, corruption, banking non compliance and abuse, hypocrisy, hidden agendas, manipulative protectionist ploys, lack of regulatory structures and effective regulatory bodies, lack of accountability transparency and ethical standards, non provision of trusted property ombudsman to protect and advise consumers, major under resourcing of court and justice systems that compromised the rule of law! The shocking list sadly acts as a stark reminder of the subsequent risks associated with offplan purchase in Spain.


But the major aspect that some fail to recognise in this sorry saga of events is the fact that EXISTING Bank Guarantee law was not a “promise” as you infer, but a LAW in place from the outset when people were purchasing offplan property in the early 2000s, which ironically was established to  protect purchasers ( indeed it incentivised purchasers ) and this law has been consistently and vigorously challenged by the Banks during the last two decades as they denied their legal responsibilities ( proliferating appeal after appeal), until such time as Supreme Court rulings finally affirmed legal doctrine acting as clarification of law. ( And still some battles continue for which we can but hope that the SC stand firm and supportive of good law intended to protect).


The process has been costly for all too many innocent purchasers and immensely time consuming, and during this period it has increasingly depended upon the competency of law firms to keep abreast of all the many legal tactics employed by the banks and ensuing supportive case law. 


Bottom line, during the last two decades no one should under estimate the impact from the Banks’  manipulative tactics as they consistently challenged existing protective law which not only significantly compromised innocent purchasers in that process, but also overloaded the system of justice. 

But also no one should underestimate the significance of ultimately making Banks accountable and how brave pioneering and ongoing endeavours have exposed all manner of uncomfortable realities which hopefully will be addressed to the benefit of all going forward. 


This has been a David and Goliath episode where innocents have remarkably taken on the power of the Banks and exposed all manner of abusive and non compliant behaviour, and for that both innocent purchasers and successful legal teams alike deserve rightful respect and acknowledgement.

Thread: CostaLuz Lawyers are the best


ads' blogs

ads's rentals

ads's properties for sale

Spain insurance services

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse you are agreeing to our use of cookies. More information here. x