- This topic has 10 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 16 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
-
-
This development is so ‘illegal’ that in a court case today in Madrid, a judge ruled the purchaser should have his money returned…..with interest.
Indeed a funny old world – at least on Planet Espana.I find it ‘interesting’ 🙄 that the local judges are finding in favour for this developer, but the unbiased out-of-town judges are ruling (correctly) against them regarding their illegal builds. No LFO plus a revoked building licence – return the purchaser’s money. Just how it should be.
-
Well we have had to pay four years of IBI. We didn’t even receive the original bills and had to pay extra. The first thing we knew about it was an embargo at the Bank. We even received a revaluation of our catastral value in January this year and the bill has doubled.
The only strange thing is that we too don’t have a building licence, or habitation licence. We hadn’t even, at the time, got round to registering the house with an Antiquity Certificate and thus thought that we wouldn’t have to pay it.
I just don’t understand the whole situation.
-
-
-
shakeel wrote:There is nothing to understand. Welcome to Spain. Remember Spain is different.[/quote;
It certainly is. Take the case of La Nucia , a town on the Costa Blanca near Benidorm .The council sent out 7,000 registered letters in November 2007 to each of the households in the area, saying that from now on the Town Hall would be responsible for the collection of the rubbish collection tax, no bill was attached only the advice that the council would collect the tax ,before it had been collected by an organisation known as SUMA As many properites are unoccupied for most of the year probably a large percentage of the letters were returned to the couincil offices.Later the bills were produced by SUMA in May, this was the tax for the year 2007.
Two months later the bills were sent out for the year 2008, a friend of mine phoned SUMA , to find out if this was a mistake as he had paid the tax for year 2007 only two months before. He was told in no uncertain terms that there was no mistake and as people had not paid the2007 tax in the year 2007 they would later be charged 20%fine plus interest for late payment. My friend tried logic and said it was physically impossible to pay the 2007 bill in the year 2007 as the bills had not been issued until the Spring of 2008. The logic obviously defeated the SUMA employee as the phone went dead and the phone was engaged thereafter.
-
@charlie wrote:
This development is so ‘illegal’ that in a court case today in Madrid, a judge ruled the purchaser should have his money returned…..with interest.
Indeed a funny old world – at least on Planet Espana.I find it ‘interesting’ 🙄 that the local judges are finding in favour for this developer, but the unbiased out-of-town judges are ruling (correctly) against them regarding their illegal builds. No LFO plus a revoked building licence – return the purchaser’s money. Just how it should be.
Charlie that is interesting. Was it an appeal or a first hearing?
-
-
-
The court case was heard end of July but the judgement only came through two days ago, probably because everyone was on their hols. during August.
It was interesting in his summing up the judge quoted the Bank Guarantee law ( Ley 57/1968 ) which is very clear – that a Bank Guarantee is valid until the point of delivery/completion of a legally-habitable property, according to the contract (including delivery being on time).
Los Lagos was due for completion I believe for 31st December 2004!The judge acknowledged the evidence given by Marbella Town Hall’s architect who stated that Los Lagos should never have been built because only single (detached) houses were planned for this land (not blocks of flats) as per the Junta’s PGOU plan. That the developer knew this very well but had continued to build anyway, despite their (corruptly-gained) building licence for apartments being revoked. For this reason the judge also ‘knocked for six’ the bank’s claim of a LFO through the Administrative Silence Rule – in fact he said he disregarded the Bank’s whole ‘argument’ in the case.
At last a judge seeing the situation as it is – as against other judges’ stance of “the developer can’t be blamed for the Town Hall revoking their building licence”.
It seems at least this judge recognised that the developer was the corrupter of the corrupted and only have themselves to blame for the situation they are now in:
A development going against the PGOU
therefore their corruptly-gained building licence revoked
no LFO so legally not habitable
plus late delivery
– so there are those who not-surprisingly don’t want to complete and simply want their money back.The judge also acknowledged that now the onus for compensation to Marbella Town Hall for Los Lagos going against the Junta’s PGOU will fall on the owners. So I suppose one good thing for those who have completed may be that if the Town Hall are demanding compensation, they are obviously not intending to issue a demolition order.
Which just leaves the Junta……. 🙄Only in Spain can owners be made to compensate a Town Hall for their own corruption, but maybe it will just be in the form of giving up some of the land/paying for some ‘public facilities’?
Still, the principle stinks.And what price the stress these purchasers have had to go through for all these years?
-
Thanks for the info’ Charlie 🙂 At last a Spanish Judge that sticks to the Law.
Below is an article I missed 28/8. Clause 2d is interesting…no money to Marbella Town Hall…no FLO.
-
- The forum ‘Property Questions & Answers’ is closed to new topics and replies.
