09 Feb 2009 9:07 PM:
Hi there,
Indeed there should have been a bank bond in place, i think 30days after the initial contract was passed, but it never was. And the lawyers never told me that it wasn't in place. It is illegal for there to not be a bank bond in place. I am part of a group case, I'll email the name of the lawyers privately for anyone that wants, apparently there are 5 others already in the case. The lawyer is planning at the moment to do these as seperate cases anyway, so it is a group document, but will be individual cases. The options are apparently to go to court now over the fact that there is no bank bond in place and the notice that it is unlikely that the development will be finished in december, there are legal precedants for this. The other option is to wait until december when it is confirmed that the development has not been built and then go to court, chance of success increases by 10% apparently. I can't make up my mind whether to do it now (less chance of Malaga Haendal going bankrupt in the meantime) or wait and then have a greater chance of success. Apparently it is not possible to go to court again if the first option is taken and the developers are found innocent.
In reply to the post below, the bank didn't go bust, there was just no bank bond issued!
What are anyone else's thoughts?
Community thread:
RYANAIR WINTER FLIGHTS
--------------------------------------