Members Login
Username 
 
Password 
    Remember Me  
Post Info TOPIC: Taking a break


Tennis legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 19256
Date:
RE: Taking a break


JonH comes home wrote:
Bob in Spain wrote:
Bob in Spain wrote:
JonH comes home wrote:
Bob in Spain wrote:
Bob in Spain wrote:

Thanks all. Not trying to get my hopes up too much but the lawyer was very upbeat about our chances after the hearing. One of the interesting points was that before the meeting, there was discussion about settling out of court whereby I would get the capital back but forego the interest. The banks lawyer seemed very keen to accept - almost too keen - but didn't have the authority to make the decision. He tried to call his bosses but was unable to get hold of them.

It was his enthusiasm to settle that made me believe I had a strong case and so after a discussion with my own lawyer, we decided to continue with the hearing. After all, 16 years of interest will easily be a 5 figure sum in itself.

But now we wait. As I mentioned before, we are expecting a decision in 2-4 weeks. Having waited 16 years, I can live with that. And there is still a chance the bank may try and make me an out of court offer, while we are waiting.

Edit

PS. I'm going to sleep well tonight.



-- Edited by Bob in Spain on Monday 25th of October 2021 05:35:53 PM


Good job I didn't get my hopes up too much.

Damn, damn and double damn.


 Hi Bob - no out of court offer? Thats a shame but still hopefully the court will make the right decision?


Court came back with the decision today and found in favour of the bank. They don't have to pay me anything and I am liable for ALL costs.

Sometimes I hate this world.  Someone steals my money and then I have to pay for the privilege of not getting it back.


My ongoing battle with the bank came to a head again today after a year of waiting - and I lost again today.

Builder ran off with my money.

Bank says it doesn't have to honour the bank guarantee I was given.

Appeal Court agrees with bank - again.

Sometimes there is no justice in this world.

Ho hum. Live goes on.


 Oh heck Bob, Im sorry to hear that. Is there no criminal recourse as the guys committed fraud or are the police interested? 


The builder and the people in the town hall who faked documents have served their prison time and are long since released. But the money is gone.  My argument is with the bank.



__________________


Challenger level

Status: Offline
Posts: 2547
Date:

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


__________________

 Its really not as bad as they say :)



Tennis legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 53696
Date:

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)



__________________


Tennis legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 39924
Date:

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.

__________________


Tennis legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 19256
Date:

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.



__________________


Tennis legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 53696
Date:

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 ....



__________________


Tennis legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 19256
Date:

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.



__________________


Tennis legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 53696
Date:

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....




__________________


Satellite level

Status: Offline
Posts: 1435
Date:

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

Status: Offline
Posts: 7821
Date:

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.

__________________


Tennis legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 19256
Date:

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

__________________
«First  <  116 17 18 | Page of 18  sorted by
 
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.

Tweet this page Post to Digg Post to Del.icio.us


Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse
Powered by ActiveBoard