Spanish Supreme Court ruling provides golden opportunity for investors to claim back the fortunes lost in the Spanish property crash, if this is your case we can help you, contact us and we will do it on a No Win No Fee basis.
Over the last 15 years, thousands of Brits bought into the Spanish dream of owning a holiday home in the sun. Unfortunately, the financial crisis of 2008 hit Spain’s property industry hard and many developers went bankrupt and disappeared overnight, leaving buildings un-started or unfinished and leaving buyers out-of-pocket and empty-handed.
The Supreme Court has established that any Bank intervening in a building development is liable when the developer opened an account with the bank to receive the deposits paid by the buyers for these properties.
In accordance with the Building Development Act which repealed Act 57/1968 of 27th July, on the receipt of deposit payments for the construction and sale of property developments (in force until 1st January 2016), the developer was obliged by law to grant a bank guarantee or insurance policy to ensure the return of the deposits paid. However, few developers in Spain did this, and as a result, no guarantees or insurance covers were put in place to ensure the return of these monies.
The interpretation of the Supreme Court is that the obligation of the developer must also be the obligation of the bank where these deposits were paid in, and if they did not fulfil this obligation and the development was not completed or the property was not delivered to the buyer, then the Bank where these payments were made is liable. It is necessary, therefore, that in addition to the property not being delivered to the buyer, that the buyer paid the deposit into the relevant bank and that their deposit was not returned.
We have been already successful in recover large amounts for our clients from the Spanish banks.
The Act 42/2015 sets out 7th of October 2020 as the deadline to make a claim in respect of any amount put down as a deposit before 7th of October 2015. If you want for your action to be considered on time you should act quickly and take immediate steps to recover the amounts put down as a deposit.
Contact us, we will help you on a NO Win NO Fee agreement.
The Laing O’Rourke-Interserve consortium has suddenly dropped out of the bidding for the first hospital to be built using the PF2 model.
The decision to withdraw from the race for the Midland Metropolitan Hospital leaves Carillion as the sole bidder some six months before last and final bids were due.
Sandwell & West Birmingham NHS Trust said that the procurement process would continue to the same timetable even though one firm was left to price the £350m, 670-bed hospital.
Construction of the new hospital is expected to start in 2016 and be completed by 2018-19.
The Midland Metropolitan Hospital will be located in Smethwick, close to the boundary between Sandwell and Birmingham on a derelict industrial estate in Grove Lane.
It is likely to be 8 storeys high with around 670 beds providing capacity for around 107,000 inpatients and 120,000 outpatients each year.
Balfour was originally picked as a shortlisted bidder but dropped out of the running several months before shortlisting to two preferred firms.
The decision to pull out comes after Laing O’Rourke last month signed financial close on a £200m deal to build a new hospital in Dumfries, being procured under the Scottish Government’s non profit distributing model.
The Trust said its expects that bidders will comply with BIM level 2, but would prefer that BIM level 3 is achieved.
In this phase, problems can arise from two fronts: on the one hand, advertising, offering or promoting the sale of homes, and secondly, the information that is provided.
First, we must take into account that is the same as the publicity is given by the seller, the developer, or builder, provided it is known by the consumer, and not be rectified prior to hiring.
All advertising is now contractual, because their content may be required by the consumer, provided that there has been rectified, although not expressly stated in the contract or document or voucher received.
The mismatch between supply (or advertisements) and housing delivered may refer to any element of the building, and therefore it may be common elements such as particular. Moreover, the claim of the lack of correspondence between advertising and labor supply can be delivered both by defects of information, such as existence of construction defects or flaws in the work delivered.
The information is a basic right of consumers, and is of particular importance in this area, so it has been specifically regulated, establishing both the information that developers or builders are required to make available to the public (site plans housing, description, materials used), such as the buyer must provide the consumer (compliance with planning regulations, statutes and rules of operation of the homeowners, or information about the payment of taxes).
Essentially in the pre-contractual stage by promoter statements or brochures, and contractual phase by providing the necessary documentation.
In the contractual phase of the first purchase of a home, the developer must provide the consumer “Book Building”, which consists of the project with the changes approved, the record of reception of the work, the link of the agents in the building, and the instructions for use and maintenance of the building and its facilities, which the buyer is obliged to preserve and transmit.
If the developer facilitates faulty information, there is no correspondence between advertising and housing delivered, and will be in breach of its contractual obligations.