This topic contains 3 replies, has 3 voices, and was last updated by 
- Posts
A landmark ruling in a Spanish court has given hope to thousands of expats hoping to claw back deposits lost in sham property developments.
A provincial court in Cantabria, northern Spain, ruled this week in favour of a buyer who paid a deposit on a property in Arce that was never built.
He was told that he had the legal right to demand a full refund from the bank, Caja Cantabria, that guaranteed the construction.
The bank was reminded of its responsibility under Spanish property law 57/1968 “to protect the funds paid by the buyer into a special account and ensure they are used solely for the purpose of building the property” and then promptly held to account for failing in its duty.
The judge’s words were reminiscent of those spoken by the Spanish Prime Minister Jose Zapatero at the EU parliament earlier this year, on behalf of “those who, maybe, have had the wool pulled over their eyes in the property sector.”
In light of the ruling, a spokesman for the Spanish Embassy in Spain said: “This is an encouraging development for those affected in the Cantabria region, but it is too early to say whether it creates any kind of legal precedent for other people in other parts of Spain.”
Too Little too late & insignificant. Like all things in spain this would be show piece trial. It would be interesting to know the person. I cant that many expects would be buying in Cantabria.
Amazing isn’t it. The Bank Guarantee is a legal requirement with its very own law. Yet the banks make you take them to court rather than honour their legal obligation.
And now someone has actually won his/her case forcing the bank to honour their BG, it makes the international press, is hailed as a landmark ruling and is viewed as an “encouraging development”. That’s how pathetic Spain has become – everyone gets excited because a bank was made to honour the law.
This case is the same as ours, we had a Bank Guarantee, nothing had been built and yet we had to spend years of our time waiting to argue a non-case in court. When the judge found in our favour the bank then even had the cheek to appeal! Just wasting more time, for the courts as well as us – an appeal which they of course lost.
I think they wrongly named it ‘Bank Guarantee’, they should have called it ‘Bank Promise-that-can-be-broken’.
As for Ley57/68, have any of these banks actually read it?Shakeel: “I cant that many expects would be buying in Cantabria”.
Is this a Christmas word game – guess the meaning by rearranging the words into their correct order, or have you been sampling the mulled wine already? 😉
A very Happy Christmas to you Shakeel, have a good one.A combination of mulled wine & a case of mind working faster than the fingers on the key board. It should of course read as
” I cant imagine that many expats would be buying in Cantabria.”
I am sure I can be forgiven. Go on its Christmas !!!!!!!!!!!
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.