Los Lagos

LoadingFavourite

This topic contains 38 replies, has 7 voices, and was last updated by Profile photo of Anonymous Anonymous 9 years, 10 months ago.

  • Author
    Posts
  • #52570
    Profile photo of Anonymous
    Anonymous
    Participant

    The developers have now turned off the water supply at Los Lagos apparently without any warning. The question now is will the water board issue private contracts and supply the water with an illegal building licence and no LFO. Very worrying. I am trying to find out more.

  • #68512
    Profile photo of Inez
    Inez
    Participant

    It is illegal for the suppliers of electricity and water to connect each individual apartment without the proper licenses in place.

    In the past it was done and developers got around lack of licenses by encouraging owners to move in, connect the supply and so it was impossible to remove supply.

    If there are no licenses electricity and watter cannot be connected until such time as there are licenses.

    Anyone involved inthis development must take action to instruct their lawyers to demand a refund before the developers go into administration.

  • #68515
    Profile photo of Anonymous
    Anonymous
    Participant

    laggen – this is very worrying news for you.
    Would it not be worth contacting the developer to ask them point blank to give you the reason for this happening? Or request your lawyer to ask?

  • #68516
    Profile photo of Anonymous
    Anonymous
    Participant

    Yes it is worrying. I am waiting for a reply from my lawyer and the developer.

  • #68518
    Profile photo of Inez
    Inez
    Participant

    Keep hassling them – dont be afraid to call several times a day. They will only respond to the ones who shout the loudest.

    Good luck

  • #68526
    Profile photo of Anonymous
    Anonymous
    Participant
  • #68527
    Profile photo of Anonymous
    Anonymous
    Participant

    Hi

    I was told that as long ago as November 2006 that ACOSOL where connecting owners, are you sure this is not the promoter cutting the builders supply off now they believe all owners have contracts.

    I was also told last week that electricity is about to go over to ENDESA but have not had confirmation of this yet.

    Regards

    Paul

  • #68530
    Profile photo of Anonymous
    Anonymous
    Participant

    There are many owners that have not private contracts with the water company yet. It is worrying that the developer would cut off the water supply without any warning at all.

  • #68531
    Profile photo of Anonymous
    Anonymous
    Participant

    Laggen

    I assumed you got your information from another forum but just in case you didn’t here is an earlier thread on another forum you may not have seen.

    Wednesday, November 29, 2006

    davekatie
    Parcela

    Posts: 6

    We are living in Los Lagos and completed a year ago. We have enjoyed free water and electric during that time but we have now had a letter from our lawyer stating that we now need to connect to the main supply. Our lawyer is dealing with it all for us. Our understanding is that you have a certain amount of days to connect before the developers cut their supply off to the apartments.

    I saw this after I was told Los Lagos was to be connected by a friend who has bought there, while I have no real wish to defend the developer don’t you think two months notice is enough?

    Regards

    Paul

  • #68587
    Profile photo of Anonymous
    Anonymous
    Participant

    I have just had confirmation from the developer that private contracts from the water board ,and meters, have been issued regarding water. The electricity is still on the builders supply.

  • #68653
    Profile photo of Anonymous
    Anonymous
    Participant
  • #68655
    Profile photo of Anonymous
    Anonymous
    Participant

    Well done for that link Dorothy.

    Based on what is written what is the water company doing connecting meters and water supplies then?. 😕

  • #68656
    Profile photo of Anonymous
    Anonymous
    Participant

    Claire,

    It appears the more research one does the more baffling and confusing buying in Spain becomes.

    How on earth is one able to make an informed decision 😯

  • #68657
    Profile photo of Anonymous
    Anonymous
    Participant

    It is a very worrying situation as Los Lagos is not the only development under scrutiny owned by the same development company. If one development folds it will have a domino effect on the others I guess. It’s quite something when a lawyer makes a statement such as that!

  • #68666
    Profile photo of Anonymous
    Anonymous
    Participant

    Hi

    All the lawyer is doing is placing a charge on the property on which the deposit was paid. It doesn’t mean that the person who has paid the deposit is going to win the case of canceling their contract. It ensures the promoter can not sell the property until the case is resolved and if the promoter folds the company the deposit is safe.

    As for the domino effect, clearly the development company has setup the business this way in order to protect from the domino effect.

    Clearly the water is being connected because the water company believe it’s legal to do so. I’m told via a lawyer that the electricity is about to be connected too.

    Regards

    Paul

  • #68670
    Profile photo of Anonymous
    Anonymous
    Participant

    Suspended building licence
    Licence of First Occupation refused
    No Bank Guarantees issued

    I admire your optimism, Paul.

    “Clearly the water is being connected because the water company believe it’s legal to do so. I’m told via a lawyer that the electricity is about to be connected too. “.
    ……I thought it was against the law for the utility companies to ‘hook up’ to properties without a legal BL/LFO?

  • #68671
    Profile photo of Anonymous
    Anonymous
    Participant

    Hi Charlie

    Suspended building licence
    Licence of First Occupation refused

    You could say that about many of the long established developments of Elvira (los Patios for example)

    It would seem if you don’t have a bank grantee (expired etc) you are able to get a legal charge on the property.

    ……I thought it was against the law for the utility companies to ‘hook up’ to properties without a legal BL/LFO?

    Clearly the water is being connected because the water company believe it’s legal to do so.

    It is allegedly imposable to register a property at the land registry without an LFO as well, but clearly the promoter has registered these in the promoters name, how else would this lawyer place a charge on the property.

    I am an optimist Charlie but I’m also reading the signs.

    Regards

    Paul

  • #68672
    Profile photo of Anonymous
    Anonymous
    Participant

    Only time will tell who are the winners and who are the losers. Thankfully, I’m not a betting woman. 😉

  • #68673
    Profile photo of Anonymous
    Anonymous
    Participant

    @p800aul wrote:

    You could say that about many of the long established developments of Elvira (los Patios for example)

    Yes, in the past this situation was quite common, in the heady days of unabated corruption. But now there happens to be full-scale investigations going on.
    As has often been said on this forum – times are very different now.

    It would seem if you don’t have a bank grantee (expired etc) you are able to get a legal charge on the property.

    Doesn’t show much ‘good intent/faith’ on the developer’s part, does it – not fulfilling their legal obligation to provide a Bank Guarantee by law.
    Getting a legal charge on your property is more expense, more stress – all to guarantee not losing your own money?
    Why should purchasers have to pay more money to safeguard their purchase? The developer’s Bank Guarantee is supposed to do that, but these developers just stick their fingers up at the law.
    Personally I think the whole ‘guarantee dilemma’ for purchasers stinks in this regard, and so does the behaviour of the developer in breaking the BG law.

    It is allegedly imposable to register a property at the land registry without an LFO as well

    It is not impossible Paul, anyone can complete and register their property at the land registry without an LFO.
    It is just totally insane to do so.


    “I am an optimist Charlie but I’m also reading the signs”.

    So are a lot of other people……… 😯

  • #68674
    Profile photo of Anonymous
    Anonymous
    Participant

    which ever way you look at it, it is obviously just a series of bloody big cons, allowed to happen by a rubbish system. If there was no BG the responsibility should have stopped there! Why on earth should a developer be able to flout the law, why on earth should a lawyer get away without making sure a BG is in place. And why on earth should an agent get away with getting innocent people involved with these crooks in the first place?

    How much more do we have to take of this daylight robbery? This system of embargo’s, how wrong is that? having to pay out more money to try and protect yourself against not only being conned out of your deposit, but being conned out of a chance of ever getting it back! I realise lawyers have to do this, to stand any chance of getting money returned, but surely that’s only because the law is so crap, it hasn’t come down on the developer, when they have clearly broken the law in the first place.

  • #68675
    Profile photo of Anonymous
    Anonymous
    Participant

    Charlie

    times are very different now

    I agree but it was only late last year that Los Patios BL was revoked. It smacks of the Town Hall playing games with the promoters to get money. Meanwhile destabilizing the property market for everyone including owners.

    Doesn’t show much ‘good intent/faith’ on the developer’s part

    I agree, but having a bank Guarantee will cost the promoter money, on the other hand buyers seeking a charge on the property will cost the promoter nothing. I would also guess getting a charge is cheaper for the buyer than trying to force the promoter to renew his bank guarantees.

    anyone can complete and register their property at the land registry without an LFO. It is just totally insane to do so.

    Well the promoter doesn’t believe so and if the promoter had not, a charge would have been impossible.

    Lets face it Charlie no one expects los Lagos to be pulled down, or do you? I would also bet that when electricity is connected a whole raft of buyers will complete without an LFO.

    Regards

    Paul

  • #68676
    Profile photo of Anonymous
    Anonymous
    Participant

    Apparently, a developer can register his buildings at the land registry as soon as the buildings are complete. Apparently, the buildings remain his property until the purchaser has completed. Presumably, as is the case at Los Lagos, because the developer still owns the buildings in his name, he can apply for the utilities to be connected. 😕 Then he can say it must all be legal! 😯

  • #68677
    Profile photo of Anonymous
    Anonymous
    Participant

    I agree, but having a bank Guarantee will cost the promoter money, on the other hand buyers seeking a charge on the property will cost the promoter nothing. I would also guess getting a charge is cheaper for the buyer than trying to force the promoter to renew his bank guarantees.

    Charlie, am I correct in understanding that BG’s do not need to be renewed? They stand up until the developer signs over the property to the purchaser, even if that date exceeds the date on the BG.?

  • #68679
    Profile photo of Anonymous
    Anonymous
    Participant

    A Bank Guarantee that has an end date certainly goes against the intent of the law, as it is supposed to cover you up to your completion day at the notary office.
    So an end date could be called an ‘illegal clause’ but a difficult one to fight in court?
    It is the same with developers putting in a BG that completion is due when the Architect issues his ‘End of Works Certificate’ which is rubbish because the building is only ‘legal’ and ready to complete on when the Town Hall inspects and issues the LFO. A bit like a car without a MOT.
    Unfortunately, I understand from various lawyers that basically a BG that has expired due to an end date (that shouldn’t be there in the first place) is just a useless piece of rubbish to be binned.
    It really is up to one’s lawyer not to accept such a BG in the first place.

  • #68680
    Profile photo of Anonymous
    Anonymous
    Participant

    It is the same with developers putting in a BG that completion is due when the Architect issues his ‘End of Works Certificate’

    Clearly this is a throw back to the good old days when admin silence worked. If this was not the case the BG would have been in place forever or at least until a LFO was officially granted. As we’ve noted before all of the developments in the area (and beyond) do not have a LFO they can frame and stick up on a wall, all are by admin silence. I read some other community AGM minutes (down the coast towards la Cala) last week (I’m sad I know) and they have just got an LFO after five years of trying.

    Lets face it there was a lot of ‘flexibility’ previously with no one really worrying about things like FLO’s etc. The corruption hasn’t really changed this flexibility just made people more cautious.

    Regards

    Paul

  • #68681
    Profile photo of Anonymous
    Anonymous
    Participant

    P.S. Needless to say, this developer put end dates on all their Bank Guarantees (the few they issued that is).

    In our case, the end date was for a year after completion was due. And at the time they issued it they already knew the building licence was revoked and they could never build. To put such a date was a premeditated action to make us wait yet a further year (making three years in total) before they would have to return our money.
    Didn’t seem morally wrong to them – they were happily and busily using our money for their company’s cash flow in the meantime.

    For the havoc this caused our lives, if/when this developer goes under – I will be opening a bottle of champagne.

  • #68682
    Profile photo of Anonymous
    Anonymous
    Participant

    Paul – the idea that the Bank Guarantee would be in place until the LFO is granted and the property declared legal IS THE WHOLE IDEA! The purpose of the BG is to give the purchaser protection for his money until he can legally complete…….however long that takes.

    Re. the admin. silence rule (used in the past) – remember that Los Lagos has actually had it’s application for an LFO refused last August.
    That is a whole different cup of tea to applying, not hearing anything for three months so therefore ‘assuming’ via the Ad. silence rule.

  • #68683
    Profile photo of Anonymous
    Anonymous
    Participant

    It was morally wrong for them to keep your money, I agree.

    For the havoc this caused our lives, if/when this developer goes under – I will be opening a bottle of champagne

    Well that might be the case but i hope if they do no one gets taken to the cleaners regarding their deposits. One thing is for sure losing a bit of money on this one development will not effect this developer as much as some poor soul losing a large deposit. The best thing that can happen for all of the buyers is that the development is made legal and they can all complete and have the apartment they bought and wanted.

    Paul – the idea that the Bank Guarantee would be in place until the LFO is granted and the property declared legal IS THE WHOLE IDEA! The purpose of the BG is to give the purchaser protection for his money until he can legally complete…….however long that takes

    I agree, but as I’ve said it could not work this way otherwise literally thousands of properties in Spain would still have valid BG on them as the have never received official LFO’s

    Re. the admin. silence rule (used in the past) – remember that Los Lagos has actually had it’s application for an LFO refused last August

    Agreed but was this after the three months admin silence rule, who is to say that any development asking now for an official LFO will not have it refused. Los Patios has had it’s BL revoked three years after completion, as I’ve said all games being played out by powers that don’t listen to you and I.

    Regards

    Paul

  • #68684
    Profile photo of Anonymous
    Anonymous
    Participant

    @p800aul wrote:

    ……it was only late last year that Los Patios BL was revoked. It smacks of the Town Hall playing games with the promoters to get money.

    Paul, with respect – I really think there is a little bit of denial going on here.

    Let us face some facts. The building licences for these developments by this developer – including Green Hills, Los Lagos, Los Patios etc were all obtained during the ex-mayor Gil’s time. And we all know ‘how’ these licences were ‘obtained’. Green Hills for example only had originally a BL for townhouses, not blocks of apartments. No wonder they are telling purchasers now “there is a little problem re. the BL over the height of construction”. Wow, surprise surprise!

    The Town Hall is not playing games with the promoter/developer to get money. They are acknowledging that these BL’s should never have been issued in the first place because they went against the Junta’s 1986 PGOU plan, were fraudently issued and are therefore under the current massive investigation into all illegal builds.

    This is why they are refusing to issue LFO’s, and this is why they are conducting a judicial review. meanwhile, the BL’s are suspended.

    Am afraid ‘thems are the facts’.

  • #68695
    Profile photo of Anonymous
    Anonymous
    Participant

    Hi Charlie

    And we all know ‘how’ these licences were ‘obtained’

    I think we all suspect how some of these licences were obtained, but it would seem that all developers and promoters are being tared with the same brush. Which by the way they may deserve. The fact is we don’t know who paid who what and whether money changed hands on all occasions. By the way I would ask if money could in fact buy anything why didn’t phase two of green hills ever get built, as far as I’m aware it was never taped off.

    They are acknowledging that these BL’s should never have been issued in the first place because they went against the Junta’s 1986 PGOU plan, were fraudulently issued and are therefore under the current massive investigation into all illegal builds.

    So if no money changed hands (or it can not be proved) and the promoters of all of these Elvria developments have a BL from the town hall, who’s to blame. The owners, certainly not, the developer probably not (if they can argue they where not complicit), the town hall and the people in power at the time are therefore absolutely to blame. So it is difficult to call them illegal builds if in fact they are developments with a BL granted by an (unknown at the time) corrupt administration, the promoter could / would argue they where built in good faith and not built illegally as they had permission.

    I’m just giving my point of view Charlie I don’t think I’m in denial I have a point of view and as yet I’ve not seen or read anything to change my point of view. I will always take argument and hopefully you feel I’m am respectful of yours while still disagreeing.

    I have given you the benefit of my view but i am unsure of yours, so just what do you think will happen to say Los Lagos. Will it be pulled down, will it lie empty for years or what, because all I hear from those close to this development (Lawyers, Administrators etc) is that by this time next year it will be a fully legal development.

    Regards

    Paul

  • #68697
    Profile photo of Anonymous
    Anonymous
    Participant

    My feelings, for what it is worth, is that building licence was issued by the town hall, the developers built, so who is to blame? The developers have finished the work and are now told it is illegal. The water company has issued private contracts with meters to people who have completed, which in my mind signals that they surely must believe that the development will become legal. Apparently it is against the law for utilitiy companies to break contract with customers once they have been issued, unless of course the customer don´t pay the bills, so this must be positive. It is a very complex sitiuation, but my hunch, hope, are that the development will became legalised.

  • #68698
    Profile photo of Anonymous
    Anonymous
    Participant

    laggen

    I absolutely agree

    Regards

    Paul

  • #68700
    Profile photo of Anonymous
    Anonymous
    Participant

    Hi Paul

    I think you and I could ‘run and run’ for pages on this 🙂 – and think we shall just respectfully agree to disagree on some of the pros and cons.

    However, my final line on it all, having been through the stress of being scared witless for a very long time at the thought of possibly losing my 100,000 euros – then the relief of getting it back through the courts – I just want to say that I too hope that there is a just outcome for all the purchasers, that this stress can be put behind them, and they can eventually enjoy the dream they bought into.

    laggen – I have my own thoughts where blame lies in all this and I fully believe it is not with the purchasers, despite what some others on this forum may say. However, I do believe the developers were the corruptors of the corrupted in the Mayor’s office and Town Hall – just who do you think filled those brown paper bags found under their beds?? – and as such derserve to be punished. By this commercial gamble of theirs, they have turned lives upside down – and just paying a fine to the Town Hall for me just doesn’t cut it.

    I sincerely wish all of you at Los Lagos good luck (and at all the other developments with problems for that matter), and may the caretaker lot at the Town Hall make all the right decisions so justice is served.

    Paul: “I think we all suspect how some of these licences were obtained…” – will send you a PM

  • #68701
    Profile photo of Anonymous
    Anonymous
    Participant

    Charlie,

    Wasn’t the original developer arrested and charged with bribery in the 3rd phase of Malaya?

  • #68702
    Profile photo of Anonymous
    Anonymous
    Participant

    Hi Dorothy – your memory is better than mine! 😉
    However, after a quick root around, I found that I had posted this in November, was taken from a newspaper article:

    “Apart from González de Caldas six other businessmen with interests in construction in the Marbella area also formed part of the third Malaya round-up……

    …..Giovanni Montaldo represented Apex 2000, a division of Iberdrola that has built with illegal licences;”

    It is Apex 2000 that obtained many of the original building licences for the Elviria/Santa Maria Golf area, then sold them on.
    The original licences were for townhouses, it was developers greed that resulted in building illegal blocks of apartments instead.

  • #68703
    Profile photo of Anonymous
    Anonymous
    Participant

    Well, it certainly is not the purchasers fault. The arguments that all are investors and thats the reason they want their depostits back since the market is somewhat stagnat at the moment is just laughable.
    I believe many parties are to blame for this sitiuation and we might never get the full story. Since the town hall agreed the building licence in the first place, then that should be that, end of story. If they accepeted a bribe then they should have to take responsibility for that. What is happening now is that the purchasers are pigs in the middle and are worried sick as to what to do. I am not particullary defending the developer, but he has built the apartments from the permission he got and could very well go bust because people won´t or dare not complete without a LFO. This would lead to reposession and people would lose their apartments.

  • #68704
    Profile photo of Anonymous
    Anonymous
    Participant

    Charlie,

    Previous article in D.Sur

    http://www.diariosur.es/prensa/20061203/marbel … 61203.html

  • #68705
    Profile photo of Anonymous
    Anonymous
    Participant

    Dorothy, you should have been a detective 😯

  • #68706
    Profile photo of Anonymous
    Anonymous
    Participant

    Hi Charlie

    It is Apex 2000 that obtained many of the original building licences for the Elviria/Santa Maria Golf area, then sold them on.
    The original licences were for townhouses, it was developers greed that resulted in building illegal blocks of apartments instead

    Including Los Patios Los Lagos, Los Jardines and Las Terrazas??

    On reflection I recall Apex being the construction company of Los Patios and Las Terrazas i think (they have a sign on the wall). Not Los Jardines or Los Largos.

    I know of one that had a building licence for apartments, we own it. We didn’t pay the deposit until we had confirmation and sight of the BL. I also know Los Largos was delayed due to it’s BL not been granted, and deposits where not paid until it was seen by the lawyer.

    Again I say why build only one half of Green Hills due to BL problems and continue with the later development of Los Lagos if they thought they where on a problem BL.

    Regards

    Paul

    PS I did edit this when I thought it through

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.