- March 28, 2008 at 9:27 am #53805
Sorry to offend some of our newbies by bringing up this development again. Just thought it was worth a mention.
New signs appeared around the area yesterday. The top of the posters say ” Totally legal, featured in the 1986 town plan, ready to move in immediately”
- March 28, 2008 at 9:49 am #80286
Did they attach to the signs a copy of the Licence of First Occupation ❓
- March 28, 2008 at 9:50 am #80287
😆 There was a bit of tissue blowing around the pole 😉
- March 28, 2008 at 9:54 am #80288
😆 😆 😆
- March 28, 2008 at 10:07 am #80289
Just an afterthought.
Being ‘featured’ in the 1986 plan means nothing re. the finished development being ‘totally legal’.
I assume they are just referring to the fact the land was legal to build on.
Many developments have their LFO refused because of overbuild, change in design, change to type of building originally allowed (eg. townhouses instead of villas) etc.
– like a few developments I could name.
But I won’t. 🙂
- March 28, 2008 at 10:27 am #80291
We featured in the Chiclana 2002 plan, however, on the latest plan this has been superceded and we now appear on the white zone?
I understand that until a plan has been approved by the Regional Government it is not worth the paper it is written on.
- March 28, 2008 at 11:17 am #80294
I had a pm 2 days ago from someone who is trying to get their deposit back from GH. Their case was in Court on Tuesday of this week. Apparently, the developers lawyer is saying GH has an LFO by virtue of “administrative silence”. They asked if I could shed some light on this. I spent ages trying to find the post from Drakan about the AS rule and became cross-eyed going back to page 73 looking for it but gave up in failure! 🙁
Anyway back to SMV, maybe they are trying the same tactic, using the AS rule to say it is legal. Having said that ,our lawyer told us last September that SMV was imminently getting the LFO. So who knows?
- March 28, 2008 at 12:56 pm #80297
F.O.L being claimed by the admin silence rule has been accepted rule.
Rules were changed and it will be the courts to decide if its right that one day the developers/Banks,solicitors,councils buyers were working within a system accepted by all parties and then they are not and everything is then illegal.
Not saying what is right or wrong in any of this but deciding in court where the legal line has been crossed and who is going to win or loose will prove a right mess.
Developer will appeal if he looses as he says it is not his fault but the Marbella Council,anyway,the claimant will also appeal if he looses and say its illegal and they dont have to complete and will carry on for years.
I would be amazed if the Banks will hold their hands up and say that its covered under the guarantee and equally the same that the courts would rule against them in this particular development/s
To be safe and to warn everyone what a dreadful situation this forum place on developments in Elviria perhaps it may be a good idea to add them to the black list thread.
Just Frank 8)
- March 28, 2008 at 1:07 pm #80298
One thing Drakan did say on the Administrative Silence rule is “There is no general rule because there are plenty of shades of grey”.
This probably now not only sums up the Admin. Silence rule, but the total Spanish property situation as whole.
The theory is the Administrative Silence rule can be applied once a developer has requested the LFO (Licence of First Occupation) and 3 months has passed without being officially inspected. A rule originally brought in to speed things up for overloaded Town Halls and obviously only applied to totally legal building licences.
However, as Drakan also confirmed, in this day and age of so many suspect/illegal licences it can no longer be assumed……otherwise all illegal builds would suddenly become legal by using this rule.
Apparently one way to confirm if the AS rule really has resulted in approval for an LFO for a particular development is for the developer to get his AS application rubber stamped by the Town Hall once the 3 months has passed as at least some sort of proof. However even that is now in question when the Junta can decide to overrule the TH whenever it wants.
It’s all a nightmare situation for people involved in purchasing, and not just “a minor problem that will be sorted out on an ongoing basis” as someone suggested recently. 🙄
Don’t hold your breathe, the Junta seems to add to all the uncertainty every week such as Hillybilly’s link yesterday.
- March 28, 2008 at 1:29 pm #80302
It gets worse! Apparently the Spanish Courts can overrule any law laid down by the Junta. If the Junta says AS is not allowed on certain developments, the Judge can say it is allowed…if he feels like it!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What hope is there?
When it comes to selling these properties, what will happen when the prospective purchaser wants a mortgage, IF their lawyer accepts the AS LFO? If REAs are not selling properties without an LFO how can this AS be acceptable?
- March 28, 2008 at 1:58 pm #80303
Excellent post which really does say it as it is.
Just Frank 8)
- March 28, 2008 at 3:19 pm #80309
Think this is what you are looking for
- March 28, 2008 at 3:37 pm #80310
Steve! Youre still alive!!!! 😆
My understanding of SMV from my friendly broker is the license is on its way and was only held up do to a type 1 offense – I think its the guard hut or summat
Anyway, he can get mortgages there and the banks would definaltely not lend if there was a serious issue, unless its a really obscure Spanish one! The main lenders are ok with it.
- March 28, 2008 at 3:52 pm #80311
Yes still out here,dont post much now, got fed up with some who contribute garbage. Still read and learn though, hope you are well and keeping your head above water.
- March 28, 2008 at 3:57 pm #80312
Yes I know how you feel!
I am well thanks, learning to breath underwater though!! 😉
- March 28, 2008 at 4:52 pm #80314
Same posters are advertising up to 100% mortgages. 😮
- March 28, 2008 at 5:14 pm #80318
Steve, thanks for the link. I did see that one but it was a more precise post from Drakan that I was looking for. I may have found it but by then I could not see the wood for the trees. The person I was looking for said he trawled the internet for four hours but could not find a definitive answer to the AS situation. It is a grey area. 😕
- March 28, 2008 at 5:15 pm #80319
Katy, maybe the purchaser would have to take over the developers mortgage.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.