Taking a break

Bob in Spain · Tennis legend

RE: Taking a break

Shhh · Challenger level

Really sorry for you Bob, I don't know how these people get away with stuff like this

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

All my sympathies, Bob.

This was due to that daft technicality of you not counting as an individual or something, yes? Coz of having to buy it in a company for your dad?

Insurance/guarantees are great - right until you need them.

And the court doesn't want to upset the domestic interest of their own banking system (I've seen the same thing firsthand in the States - blatant)

indiana · Tennis legend

Without knowing the legal technicalities re individual vs company here it's pretty outrageous that the bank has fought so hard to not just do the right thing.

So sorry for you Bob.

Bob in Spain · Tennis legend

Coup Droit wrote:
All my sympathies, Bob.

This was due to that daft technicality of you not counting as an individual or something, yes? Coz of having to buy it in a company for your dad?

Insurance/guarantees are great - right until you need them.

And the court doesn't want to upset the domestic interest of their own banking system (I've seen the same thing firsthand in the States - blatant)

Yes. Exactly that. The original case, taken by the group of 'afectados' went all the way to the Supreme Court in a process that took several years and they won. The Court stated that the bank had to pay out on the guarantees. Later however, another court redefined this to say the ruling only applied to private buyers.

As I purchased the house in a company name, in order to offset the VAT element (house sales are subject to 10% VAT here), I was deemed NOT to be a private buyer. Hence that ruling does not apply to me.

I now have to decide if I will continue and pass this to the Supreme Court again, but I have no idea yet of the costs.

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

Well, once you've got private individual in there, I can understand interpreting private individual not to include companies (even if they're just obviously one-man, single-purpose companies like yours)

But what I can't see at all is how the other court inserted 'private individual' into a general guarantee in the first place. I mean, presumably the bank offered you (as a company) the guarantee, you both signed it, you 'paid' for it, in some form or other......I assume you're directly appealing the other court's ruling, as part of your claim, coz that's the one that allowed them to wriggle out of their contract, no? Was it a normal lowly court or some important body? Normally, priority for private individuals is the sort of thing that a state body would decide (basically not to p*ss off the voting base, and to stop the tabloids having a field day). I can't see how a court (especially in a civil law country) could step in and split the guarantee person in two.

But what do I know???? That's the problem with legal systems, and vested interests.

Again, I feel your frustration, Bob (and financial loss). It's awful ....

Bob in Spain · Tennis legend

Coup Droit wrote:
Well, once you've got private individual in there, I can understand interpreting private individual not to include companies (even if they're just obviously one-man, single-purpose companies like yours)

But what I can't see at all is how the other court inserted 'private individual' into a general guarantee in the first place. I mean, presumably the bank offered you (as a company) the guarantee, you both signed it, you 'paid' for it, in some form or other......I assume you're directly appealing the other court's ruling, as part of your claim, coz that's the one that allowed them to wriggle out of their contract, no? Was it a normal lowly court or some important body? Normally, priority for private individuals is the sort of thing that a state body would decide (basically not to p*ss off the voting base, and to stop the tabloids having a field day). I can't see how a court (especially in a civil law country) could step in and split the guarantee person in two.

But what do I know???? That's the problem with legal systems, and vested interests.

Again, I feel your frustration, Bob (and financial loss). It's awful ....

The way it works here is that the builder takes out a 'global' bank guarantee for the development and then 'apportions' that to the individual buyers. So the buyer never has a direct contract with the bank. It's more of a chain.

Clearly the builder did have the contract with the bank because otherwise the Supreme Court couldn't have ruled as it did. And I had my contract with the builder. The question is over the exact wording of the contract between the bank and the builder.

Even now I don't understand the entirety of the situation. I get the feeling that there is a lot of 'subjective' interpretation rather than purely legal, but that is just my gut feeling. They are basically saying 'we will protect private buyers who were buying for themselves, but companies and investment buyers can suck it up. It was their risk'.

I may be completely wrong in that assessment, but that is the sensation I get.

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

Yeah, your interpretation sounds very likely.

As said, I've seen it in various other things, basically as a political decision not to annoy too many Joe Blogg voters and get the press involved. People tend to think that corporates can take care of themselves and so our consumer protection laws are set up to protect individuals.

But as you say, there's clearly a contract there between the builder and the bank, and you'd think the wording of the contract must be clear. i.e. they nearly always have a glossary at the start and 'guarantee' or 'beneficiary' or whatever the ulitmate house owner (i.e. the person who used the builder and relied on that guarantee) is called in the contract will have a definition.

ADD: I expect this is of no use at all, and forgive me if it's preaching to the converted, so to speak, but I went off and looked at various sites - just out of interest...... I see the law 57/68 that it's all about, and the 2015/16 Supreme Court judgment....and, yes, the problem with real esate investment companies (which is not really what you were but...) but certain solicitors saying the wording of the law is very broad and should cover you because it's the purpose of the house, not the owner, that matters:

Article 1, the purchase of property intended for home or family residence, must be subject to guarantee if it is to be used on a permanent basis or as a seasonal residence, accidental or circumstantial

"From Case Law of this court it is clear that the application of Law 57/1968 depends, in accordance with its art. 1, not on the consumer status of the buyer, but on the fact that the dwelling in question is intended as a domicile or family residence (judgments 360/2016, of June 1, and 420/2016, of June 24), a purpose that must be alleged in the
and, in the case of a commercial company as in this case, it must be duly proven ( judgments 360/2016, of June 1, and 420/2016, of June 420/2016).(Judgments 360/2016, of June 1, 40/2016, of June 24, 675/2016, of November 16, and 161/2018, of March 21, among others)."

www.eyeonspain.com/forums/posts-long-25033.aspx
www.white-baos.com/en/investors-purchase-of-multiple-properties-off-plan-can-the-money-lost-be-recovered-law-57-1968/
www.legaltoday.com/practica-juridica/derecho-civil/civil/debe-interpretarse-la-ley-5768-a-la-luz-del-derecho-de-consumo-europeo-2020-01-17/

Anyway, again, I feel for you, all the very best, keep strong....

Elegant Point · Satellite level

So sorry to hear your struggle continues.

I know nothing about legal stuff, but surely if you were led to believe the guarantee contract you signed offered you protection and it turns out its doesnt, then havent you been miss sold and the guarantee you signed was actually worthless?

Jan · Hall of fame

Oh Bob, I do feel for you. No words of wisdom to offer I'm afraid - I don't know the first thing about it.

Bob in Spain · Tennis legend

Sun Sea and Selling Houses on Channel 4+1 right now. They are about to show my house - or at least my neighbour's house which is identical.

Edit

Didn't do it justice. They didn't even show the pool area.

-- Edited by Bob in Spain on Friday 28th of July 2023 05:50:19 PM