Costa Esuri - Ayamonte - EUC
Mar 8th 2010, 7:11 pm
#571
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 2,377
Re: Costa Esuri - Ayamonte - EUC
S_L, I don't think anyone said the EUC Isla Canela has been dissolved? Whether or not anyone pays into it, I do not know. I believe there is an Asociación de Vecinos de Canela (Ayamonte), but that is all I know.
I don't know the answer to the question about how to gain power in such an association (unless the LPH states otherwise). It seems right that power should devolve to the people, but people have to be active in their own representation. This might be too difficult for a number of reasons.
I don't know the answer to the question about how to gain power in such an association (unless the LPH states otherwise). It seems right that power should devolve to the people, but people have to be active in their own representation. This might be too difficult for a number of reasons.
Mar 8th 2010, 8:00 pm
#572
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Jun 2005
Location: Puente Esuri
Posts: 6,903
Re: Costa Esuri - Ayamonte - EUC
Came across these three sites posted on another thread and they are so pertnent to this discussion I felt they should be posted here: -
http://www.icamalaga.org/funcio/lega.../lphingles.htm
http://britishexpats.com/articles/sp...eveloper-bust/
http://www.eurosur.org/CONSUVEC/cont.../comunidad.htm
http://www.icamalaga.org/funcio/lega.../lphingles.htm
http://britishexpats.com/articles/sp...eveloper-bust/
http://www.eurosur.org/CONSUVEC/cont.../comunidad.htm
Mar 8th 2010, 8:16 pm
#573
Forum Regular
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 245
Re: Costa Esuri - Ayamonte - EUC
S_L, I don't think anyone said the EUC Isla Canela has been dissolved? Whether or not anyone pays into it, I do not know. I believe there is an Asociación de Vecinos de Canela (Ayamonte), but that is all I know.
I don't know the answer to the question about how to gain power in such an association (unless the LPH states otherwise). It seems right that power should devolve to the people, but people have to be active in their own representation. This might be too difficult for a number of reasons.
I don't know the answer to the question about how to gain power in such an association (unless the LPH states otherwise). It seems right that power should devolve to the people, but people have to be active in their own representation. This might be too difficult for a number of reasons.
As the power of the Association, the LPH does not apply to associations. I think you have to think a system in which the Association has power, but that decisions are taken by its members.
Mar 9th 2010, 6:27 am
#574
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Jun 2005
Location: Puente Esuri
Posts: 6,903
Re: Costa Esuri - Ayamonte - EUC
Regarding the dissolution of EUC Canela, I have understood the post from John # 563. http://britishexpats.com/forum/showp...&postcount=563
As the power of the Association, the LPH does not apply to associations. I think you have to think a system in which the Association has power, but that decisions are taken by its members.
As the power of the Association, the LPH does not apply to associations. I think you have to think a system in which the Association has power, but that decisions are taken by its members.
Mar 9th 2010, 9:58 am
#575
BE Positive
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 3,980
Re: Costa Esuri - Ayamonte - EUC
I am sorry to have named you as the one who told me about the demise of the EUC at Canela it was another smart young lady who told me that the Last Mayor who had tried to prematurly set up the EUC (just like CE) was stopped by the formation of a formal residents association which brought the residents together to oppose the Mayors plans and the EUC was aborted.
- A properly constituded Residents/Owners association DOES have power.
- Its been shown in reality in Canela - where they have authority and also have stopped an EUC
- There is no block vote, and there is NO connection with the presidents ofcommunities and intercommunities. They, presidents and vice presidents etc, are very engaged and helpful people, within their communities/Intercommunities - where they have some 'power'.
- However they (Comm and IC prez's) have a SINGLE VOTE - in a resident/owners association based on their individual property - NO MORE.
- Anybody can represent a group of owners. The group doesnt have to be from e.g one Manzana... a group can give proxy even if they are seperated across Esuri.... even if they are KNOBS
(see earlier post) - Theres a LOT OF GOOD PEOPLE getting engaged in one or both of the new associations that have recently started....
- These associations have yet to have the first meeting to determine how they can function effectively, legally and properly
- The associations have come about because residents/owners have serious doubts about the EUC. The EUC have failed the people that they want money from!
- Its the EUC's fault! I was one of the people that wanted a properly functioning EUC. I was never against them - in the beginning! I paid my bills and wanted them to be effective. They are not.
- I will support the associations as they are honest, run by decent people and want the best for Costa Esuri.
Jon
PS Lets not allow this discussion to forget the MOST IMPORTANT PRIORITY.... Getting the first BANK GUARANTEE.... time is running out!!!
Last edited by Jon-Bxl; Mar 9th 2010 at 10:01 am. Reason: Wanted to add the PS!!!!!!
Mar 10th 2010, 10:53 am
#576
Forum Regular
Joined: Aug 2007
Location: Ruislip Middlesex
Posts: 57
Re: Costa Esuri - Ayamonte - EUC
Bottom line........ from all the discussions as I see it... Here are the "TOP TEN" points - ... finally
Jon
PS Lets not allow this discussion to forget the MOST IMPORTANT PRIORITY.... Getting the first BANK GUARANTEE.... time is running out!!!
- A properly constituded Residents/Owners association DOES have power.
- Its been shown in reality in Canela - where they have authority and also have stopped an EUC
- There is no block vote, and there is NO connection with the presidents ofcommunities and intercommunities. They, presidents and vice presidents etc, are very engaged and helpful people, within their communities/Intercommunities - where they have some 'power'.
- However they (Comm and IC prez's) have a SINGLE VOTE - in a resident/owners association based on their individual property - NO MORE.
- Anybody can represent a group of owners. The group doesnt have to be from e.g one Manzana... a group can give proxy even if they are seperated across Esuri.... even if they are KNOBS (see earlier post)
- Theres a LOT OF GOOD PEOPLE getting engaged in one or both of the new associations that have recently started....
- These associations have yet to have the first meeting to determine how they can function effectively, legally and properly
- The associations have come about because residents/owners have serious doubts about the EUC. The EUC have failed the people that they want money from!
- Its the EUC's fault! I was one of the people that wanted a properly functioning EUC. I was never against them - in the beginning! I paid my bills and wanted them to be effective. They are not.
- I will support the associations as they are honest, run by decent people and want the best for Costa Esuri.
Jon
PS Lets not allow this discussion to forget the MOST IMPORTANT PRIORITY.... Getting the first BANK GUARANTEE.... time is running out!!!
De facto, the EUC exists. SL has formally contested its legality. I believe that there is a strong case for so doing, particulary as it was formed in far too great a hurry. If it is decided that the EUC is illegal, responsibility for the maintenance of those elements of the CE urbanization external to the ICs and private villas/plots, reverts back to Fadesa. If they don't do the job, then it would become an Ayamonte Council problem. The risk then is that neither provides what the owners feel is an an acceptable standard. It is at that stage that it would be appropriate to form a EUC. (By the way, when will it be decided whether the EUC is legal or not? Can SL provide any light on this?)
If the EUC is legal, then Spanish Law calls for it to continue in operation until the Local Authority fully accepts responsibility for the urbanization's maintenance, which it is unlikely to do until the developers have provided all the features in the planning agreement. The implication of Jon's remarks above is that the Residents/Owners Association should take over this role. This is not possible. The EUC is given the power to force reluctant owners to pay their subs; a voluntary R/O Association could not have this power, and its membership would soon drop off if it became apparent that members were having to provide funds and non-members not.
Therefore, an R/O Association should concentrate its efforts on making sure that the EUC is functioning properly and in accordance with owners wishes. To do this, because of the EUC's voting structure, it needs the co-operation of the IC Presidents. As I've stated before, the IC Presidents are all owners and are likely to go along with R/O wishes. If any of them fail to do so, then they need to be voted out of their posts, and it will not be beyond the wit of man to achieve this.
I feel that the Bank Guarantees are a bit of a side issue. The Bank Guarantee in respect of an off-plan purchase provides the buyer with compensation in the event of the developer going bankrupt. Do we know the
terms of the Bank Guarantees in respect of the CE development? Is it only payable if Fadesa go bankrupt (they are only in Administration at the moment)? Is there a time factor involved by which the developer has to complete his project? It we do not know these details then maybe we should not initially go off firing off on all cylinders, but first establish with the Mayor why he is not yet pursuing payment. In any event it would be wrong to expect for this money to be made directly available to owners as it would go to the Local Authority. I guess that, at the very best, they could use it to pay for the maintenance of CE which would negate the need to pay EUC subs for two or three years. Far more likely, however, is that the local authority would just pocket the money and do nothing with it.
Taff
Mar 10th 2010, 2:52 pm
#577
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Jun 2005
Location: Puente Esuri
Posts: 6,903
Re: Costa Esuri - Ayamonte - EUC
I repeat, please do not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
De facto, the EUC exists. SL has formally contested its legality. I believe that there is a strong case for so doing, particulary as it was formed in far too great a hurry. If it is decided that the EUC is illegal, responsibility for the maintenance of those elements of the CE urbanization external to the ICs and private villas/plots, reverts back to Fadesa. If they don't do the job, then it would become an Ayamonte Council problem. The risk then is that neither provides what the owners feel is an an acceptable standard. It is at that stage that it would be appropriate to form a EUC. (By the way, when will it be decided whether the EUC is legal or not? Can SL provide any light on this?)
If the EUC is legal, then Spanish Law calls for it to continue in operation until the Local Authority fully accepts responsibility for the urbanization's maintenance, which it is unlikely to do until the developers have provided all the features in the planning agreement. The implication of Jon's remarks above is that the Residents/Owners Association should take over this role. This is not possible. The EUC is given the power to force reluctant owners to pay their subs; a voluntary R/O Association could not have this power, and its membership would soon drop off if it became apparent that members were having to provide funds and non-members not.
Therefore, an R/O Association should concentrate its efforts on making sure that the EUC is functioning properly and in accordance with owners wishes. To do this, because of the EUC's voting structure, it needs the co-operation of the IC Presidents. As I've stated before, the IC Presidents are all owners and are likely to go along with R/O wishes. If any of them fail to do so, then they need to be voted out of their posts, and it will not be beyond the wit of man to achieve this.
I feel that the Bank Guarantees are a bit of a side issue. The Bank Guarantee in respect of an off-plan purchase provides the buyer with compensation in the event of the developer going bankrupt. Do we know the
terms of the Bank Guarantees in respect of the CE development? Is it only payable if Fadesa go bankrupt (they are only in Administration at the moment)? Is there a time factor involved by which the developer has to complete his project? It we do not know these details then maybe we should not initially go off firing off on all cylinders, but first establish with the Mayor why he is not yet pursuing payment. In any event it would be wrong to expect for this money to be made directly available to owners as it would go to the Local Authority. I guess that, at the very best, they could use it to pay for the maintenance of CE which would negate the need to pay EUC subs for two or three years. Far more likely, however, is that the local authority would just pocket the money and do nothing with it.
Taff
De facto, the EUC exists. SL has formally contested its legality. I believe that there is a strong case for so doing, particulary as it was formed in far too great a hurry. If it is decided that the EUC is illegal, responsibility for the maintenance of those elements of the CE urbanization external to the ICs and private villas/plots, reverts back to Fadesa. If they don't do the job, then it would become an Ayamonte Council problem. The risk then is that neither provides what the owners feel is an an acceptable standard. It is at that stage that it would be appropriate to form a EUC. (By the way, when will it be decided whether the EUC is legal or not? Can SL provide any light on this?)
If the EUC is legal, then Spanish Law calls for it to continue in operation until the Local Authority fully accepts responsibility for the urbanization's maintenance, which it is unlikely to do until the developers have provided all the features in the planning agreement. The implication of Jon's remarks above is that the Residents/Owners Association should take over this role. This is not possible. The EUC is given the power to force reluctant owners to pay their subs; a voluntary R/O Association could not have this power, and its membership would soon drop off if it became apparent that members were having to provide funds and non-members not.
Therefore, an R/O Association should concentrate its efforts on making sure that the EUC is functioning properly and in accordance with owners wishes. To do this, because of the EUC's voting structure, it needs the co-operation of the IC Presidents. As I've stated before, the IC Presidents are all owners and are likely to go along with R/O wishes. If any of them fail to do so, then they need to be voted out of their posts, and it will not be beyond the wit of man to achieve this.
I feel that the Bank Guarantees are a bit of a side issue. The Bank Guarantee in respect of an off-plan purchase provides the buyer with compensation in the event of the developer going bankrupt. Do we know the
terms of the Bank Guarantees in respect of the CE development? Is it only payable if Fadesa go bankrupt (they are only in Administration at the moment)? Is there a time factor involved by which the developer has to complete his project? It we do not know these details then maybe we should not initially go off firing off on all cylinders, but first establish with the Mayor why he is not yet pursuing payment. In any event it would be wrong to expect for this money to be made directly available to owners as it would go to the Local Authority. I guess that, at the very best, they could use it to pay for the maintenance of CE which would negate the need to pay EUC subs for two or three years. Far more likely, however, is that the local authority would just pocket the money and do nothing with it.
Taff
This is so obviously not the case at the moment and the reason the Mayor set up the EUC in such a hurry. If Fadesa had gone Bankrupt then CE could have sunk into a situation similar to some Urbs on the CDS or CB where no one is interested in finishing the general infrastuctre and people are living without connected main drains and water and the roads are very poor.
The BG in this case is nothing to do with individual owners it is only there for the LA to draw on if Fadesa do not complete the public adoptable works in accordance with the agreement which is the case at the moment and MF do not seem inclined to do anything about this so the Mayor and only the Mayor can call in the BG to complete those works and nothing else.
What you may see as maintenance a highways engineer would see as finishing the roads to the required standard.
Last edited by EsuriJohn; Mar 10th 2010 at 3:00 pm.
Mar 10th 2010, 3:14 pm
#578
Forum Regular
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 245
Re: Costa Esuri - Ayamonte - EUC
CAROL TAFF in black/red, me in blue.
I repeat, please do not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
De facto, the EUC exists. SL has formally contested its legality. I believe that there is a strong case for so doing, particulary as it was formed in far too great a hurry. If it is decided that the EUC is illegal, responsibility for the maintenance of those elements of the CE urbanization external to the ICs and private villas/plots, reverts back to Fadesa. If they don't do the job, then it would become an Ayamonte Council problem. The risk then is that neither provides what the owners feel is an an acceptable standard. It is at that stage that it would be appropriate to form a EUC. (By the way, when will it be decided whether the EUC is legal or not? Can SL provide any light on this?).
RE: Actually, to my knowledge, nobody has challenged the legality of the EUC. A developer has been very close to it (do not know if you finally do it). From my point of view, that would be a task that must not only perform a single owner. Unity is strength. My suggestion is that one set of owners (an association meeting) contesting the last minutes of the meeting (February). After the Town Hall answer denying the appeal, it is necessary to resort to the courts. If you want to follow this route, it must not be due deadlines. If not become due and has started legal proceedings, no longer possible to do this later.
If the EUC is legal, then Spanish Law calls for it to continue in operation until the Local Authority fully accepts responsibility for the urbanization's maintenance, which it is unlikely to do until the developers have provided all the features in the planning agreement. The implication of Jon's remarks above is that the Residents/Owners Association should take over this role. This is not possible. The EUC is given the power to force reluctant owners to pay their subs; a voluntary R/O Association could not have this power, and its membership would soon drop off if it became apparent that members were having to provide funds and non-members not.
RE: I agree. The force or power is not the individual owner if not the President of Communities and intercom. I think we should think about a system by which the decisions of the Association votes are taken by individuals, but has the possibility of having the power of communications and intercom (land owners and developers).
Therefore, an R/O Association should concentrate its efforts on making sure that the EUC is functioning properly and in accordance with owners wishes. To do this, because of the EUC's voting structure, it needs the co-operation of the IC Presidents. As I've stated before, the IC Presidents are all owners and are likely to go along with R/O wishes. If any of them fail to do so, then they need to be voted out of their posts, and it will not be beyond the wit of man to achieve this.
RE: I'd like to know if the EUC Isla Canela worked in the past. I also wonder why that is not currently running. If EUC is not responsible for the maintenance of IC, will assume the Town Hall.
I feel that the Bank Guarantees are a bit of a side issue. The Bank Guarantee in respect of an off-plan purchase provides the buyer with compensation in the event of the developer going bankrupt. Do we know the
terms of the Bank Guarantees in respect of the CE development? Is it only payable if Fadesa go bankrupt (they are only in Administration at the moment)? Is there a time factor involved by which the developer has to complete his project? It we do not know these details then maybe we should not initially go off firing off on all cylinders, but first establish with the Mayor why he is not yet pursuing payment. In any event it would be wrong to expect for this money to be made directly available to owners as it would go to the Local Authority. I guess that, at the very best, they could use it to pay for the maintenance of CE which would negate the need to pay EUC subs for two or three years. Far more likely, however, is that the local authority would just pocket the money and do nothing with it.
RE: In my opinion the bank guarantees is an important issue to be parallel to the feasibility and operability of the EUC. The terms of the guarantees are in their own document. The guarantees must be transformed into money not only when MF goes bankrupt, otherwise when MF does not meet the planning of work. The guarantee was money the Town Hall would manage only to finish the job not to keep CE.
Taff
I repeat, please do not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
De facto, the EUC exists. SL has formally contested its legality. I believe that there is a strong case for so doing, particulary as it was formed in far too great a hurry. If it is decided that the EUC is illegal, responsibility for the maintenance of those elements of the CE urbanization external to the ICs and private villas/plots, reverts back to Fadesa. If they don't do the job, then it would become an Ayamonte Council problem. The risk then is that neither provides what the owners feel is an an acceptable standard. It is at that stage that it would be appropriate to form a EUC. (By the way, when will it be decided whether the EUC is legal or not? Can SL provide any light on this?).
RE: Actually, to my knowledge, nobody has challenged the legality of the EUC. A developer has been very close to it (do not know if you finally do it). From my point of view, that would be a task that must not only perform a single owner. Unity is strength. My suggestion is that one set of owners (an association meeting) contesting the last minutes of the meeting (February). After the Town Hall answer denying the appeal, it is necessary to resort to the courts. If you want to follow this route, it must not be due deadlines. If not become due and has started legal proceedings, no longer possible to do this later.
If the EUC is legal, then Spanish Law calls for it to continue in operation until the Local Authority fully accepts responsibility for the urbanization's maintenance, which it is unlikely to do until the developers have provided all the features in the planning agreement. The implication of Jon's remarks above is that the Residents/Owners Association should take over this role. This is not possible. The EUC is given the power to force reluctant owners to pay their subs; a voluntary R/O Association could not have this power, and its membership would soon drop off if it became apparent that members were having to provide funds and non-members not.
RE: I agree. The force or power is not the individual owner if not the President of Communities and intercom. I think we should think about a system by which the decisions of the Association votes are taken by individuals, but has the possibility of having the power of communications and intercom (land owners and developers).
Therefore, an R/O Association should concentrate its efforts on making sure that the EUC is functioning properly and in accordance with owners wishes. To do this, because of the EUC's voting structure, it needs the co-operation of the IC Presidents. As I've stated before, the IC Presidents are all owners and are likely to go along with R/O wishes. If any of them fail to do so, then they need to be voted out of their posts, and it will not be beyond the wit of man to achieve this.
RE: I'd like to know if the EUC Isla Canela worked in the past. I also wonder why that is not currently running. If EUC is not responsible for the maintenance of IC, will assume the Town Hall.
I feel that the Bank Guarantees are a bit of a side issue. The Bank Guarantee in respect of an off-plan purchase provides the buyer with compensation in the event of the developer going bankrupt. Do we know the
terms of the Bank Guarantees in respect of the CE development? Is it only payable if Fadesa go bankrupt (they are only in Administration at the moment)? Is there a time factor involved by which the developer has to complete his project? It we do not know these details then maybe we should not initially go off firing off on all cylinders, but first establish with the Mayor why he is not yet pursuing payment. In any event it would be wrong to expect for this money to be made directly available to owners as it would go to the Local Authority. I guess that, at the very best, they could use it to pay for the maintenance of CE which would negate the need to pay EUC subs for two or three years. Far more likely, however, is that the local authority would just pocket the money and do nothing with it.
RE: In my opinion the bank guarantees is an important issue to be parallel to the feasibility and operability of the EUC. The terms of the guarantees are in their own document. The guarantees must be transformed into money not only when MF goes bankrupt, otherwise when MF does not meet the planning of work. The guarantee was money the Town Hall would manage only to finish the job not to keep CE.
Taff
Mar 10th 2010, 3:21 pm
#579
Forum Regular
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 245
Re: Costa Esuri - Ayamonte - EUC
I don't think you are correct here the local authority only becomes responsible when they have accepted all parts of the site which are designated as "public" and are completed to their entire satisfaction in accordance with the planning brief and construction standards.
This is so obviously not the case at the moment and the reason the Mayor set up the EUC in such a hurry. If Fadesa had gone Bankrupt then CE could have sunk into a situation similar to some Urbs on the CDS or CB where no one is interested in finishing the general infrastuctre and people are living without connected main drains and water and the roads are very poor.
The BG in this case is nothing to do with individual owners it is only there for the LA to draw on if Fadesa do not complete the public adoptable works in accordance with the agreement which is the case at the moment and MF do not seem inclined to do anything about this so the Mayor and only the Mayor can call in the BG to complete those works and nothing else.
What you may see as maintenance a highways engineer would see as finishing the roads to the required standard.
This is so obviously not the case at the moment and the reason the Mayor set up the EUC in such a hurry. If Fadesa had gone Bankrupt then CE could have sunk into a situation similar to some Urbs on the CDS or CB where no one is interested in finishing the general infrastuctre and people are living without connected main drains and water and the roads are very poor.
The BG in this case is nothing to do with individual owners it is only there for the LA to draw on if Fadesa do not complete the public adoptable works in accordance with the agreement which is the case at the moment and MF do not seem inclined to do anything about this so the Mayor and only the Mayor can call in the BG to complete those works and nothing else.
What you may see as maintenance a highways engineer would see as finishing the roads to the required standard.
Mar 10th 2010, 6:02 pm
#580
Forum Regular
Joined: Apr 2008
Location: costa esuri
Posts: 104
Re: Costa Esuri - Ayamonte - EUC
I repeat, please do not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
De facto, the EUC exists. SL has formally contested its legality. I believe that there is a strong case for so doing, particulary as it was formed in far too great a hurry. If it is decided that the EUC is illegal, responsibility for the maintenance of those elements of the CE urbanization external to the ICs and private villas/plots, reverts back to Fadesa. If they don't do the job, then it would become an Ayamonte Council problem. The risk then is that neither provides what the owners feel is an an acceptable standard. It is at that stage that it would be appropriate to form a EUC. (By the way, when will it be decided whether the EUC is legal or not? Can SL provide any light on this?)
If the EUC is legal, then Spanish Law calls for it to continue in operation until the Local Authority fully accepts responsibility for the urbanization's maintenance, which it is unlikely to do until the developers have provided all the features in the planning agreement. The implication of Jon's remarks above is that the Residents/Owners Association should take over this role. This is not possible. The EUC is given the power to force reluctant owners to pay their subs; a voluntary R/O Association could not have this power, and its membership would soon drop off if it became apparent that members were having to provide funds and non-members not.
Therefore, an R/O Association should concentrate its efforts on making sure that the EUC is functioning properly and in accordance with owners wishes. To do this, because of the EUC's voting structure, it needs the co-operation of the IC Presidents. As I've stated before, the IC Presidents are all owners and are likely to go along with R/O wishes. If any of them fail to do so, then they need to be voted out of their posts, and it will not be beyond the wit of man to achieve this.
I feel that the Bank Guarantees are a bit of a side issue. The Bank Guarantee in respect of an off-plan purchase provides the buyer with compensation in the event of the developer going bankrupt. Do we know the
terms of the Bank Guarantees in respect of the CE development? Is it only payable if Fadesa go bankrupt (they are only in Administration at the moment)? Is there a time factor involved by which the developer has to complete his project? It we do not know these details then maybe we should not initially go off firing off on all cylinders, but first establish with the Mayor why he is not yet pursuing payment. In any event it would be wrong to expect for this money to be made directly available to owners as it would go to the Local Authority. I guess that, at the very best, they could use it to pay for the maintenance of CE which would negate the need to pay EUC subs for two or three years. Far more likely, however, is that the local authority would just pocket the money and do nothing with it.
Taff
De facto, the EUC exists. SL has formally contested its legality. I believe that there is a strong case for so doing, particulary as it was formed in far too great a hurry. If it is decided that the EUC is illegal, responsibility for the maintenance of those elements of the CE urbanization external to the ICs and private villas/plots, reverts back to Fadesa. If they don't do the job, then it would become an Ayamonte Council problem. The risk then is that neither provides what the owners feel is an an acceptable standard. It is at that stage that it would be appropriate to form a EUC. (By the way, when will it be decided whether the EUC is legal or not? Can SL provide any light on this?)
If the EUC is legal, then Spanish Law calls for it to continue in operation until the Local Authority fully accepts responsibility for the urbanization's maintenance, which it is unlikely to do until the developers have provided all the features in the planning agreement. The implication of Jon's remarks above is that the Residents/Owners Association should take over this role. This is not possible. The EUC is given the power to force reluctant owners to pay their subs; a voluntary R/O Association could not have this power, and its membership would soon drop off if it became apparent that members were having to provide funds and non-members not.
Therefore, an R/O Association should concentrate its efforts on making sure that the EUC is functioning properly and in accordance with owners wishes. To do this, because of the EUC's voting structure, it needs the co-operation of the IC Presidents. As I've stated before, the IC Presidents are all owners and are likely to go along with R/O wishes. If any of them fail to do so, then they need to be voted out of their posts, and it will not be beyond the wit of man to achieve this.
I feel that the Bank Guarantees are a bit of a side issue. The Bank Guarantee in respect of an off-plan purchase provides the buyer with compensation in the event of the developer going bankrupt. Do we know the
terms of the Bank Guarantees in respect of the CE development? Is it only payable if Fadesa go bankrupt (they are only in Administration at the moment)? Is there a time factor involved by which the developer has to complete his project? It we do not know these details then maybe we should not initially go off firing off on all cylinders, but first establish with the Mayor why he is not yet pursuing payment. In any event it would be wrong to expect for this money to be made directly available to owners as it would go to the Local Authority. I guess that, at the very best, they could use it to pay for the maintenance of CE which would negate the need to pay EUC subs for two or three years. Far more likely, however, is that the local authority would just pocket the money and do nothing with it.
Taff
I know that the EUC exists because it's in our deeds. And I know that we have to pay the EUC when the Puente Esuri handover certificate has been signed (Acta de Recepción) by the town hall. Right now its provisionally received, the public works are not completed and the quality is not the one stipulated in the planning and is far from the beatiful images in the advertising catalogues.
We paid our (luxury???) homes at a very high price , we pay high community and intercommunity fees, we pay the double for our council taxes compared with any owner in Ayamonte or Huelva and now they want us to pay the works that should been carried out and completed by Fadesa. And even better if we pay without complaining, so no one is angry.
Whats going on here? Seems to take us for fools.
Why pay council tax if the Town hall/Mayor does not help us providing services until the Fadesa mess is resolved? This is outrageous!
By the way, today I have confirmed (once again) in the tax office that they are not applying any EUC penalties to anyone, neither have knowledge of future fines.
Last edited by yes we can; Mar 10th 2010 at 6:06 pm.
Mar 11th 2010, 8:28 am
#581
BE Positive
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 3,980
Re: Costa Esuri - Ayamonte - EUC
Hi I want to address a couple of points.
Recently I have been responding to posts that I felt were wrong on a couple of major points. Block votes from presidents and legal powers of associations. I remain firmly of the view that there is no block vote and, yes, an association DOES have legal powers... and I use the Canela example to show just how much power they can actually have. In addition Ive made some other points too.
I have lost faith in the EUC organisation, based on what Ive seen. And its my belief that the Associations have arrived for one reason only - mass dissatisfaction with the EUC board... Thus the assocs. are born wanting to create something that really represents the owners. Whilst the EUC board appear somehow to have other priorities.
I have no proof of any EUC wrong doing, but I have a nagging feeling that something strange is going on. Lets leave it at that.
However I have never advocated that the EUC is dissolved. In fact I was hoping that they would listen to resident feedback, which was supportive of them and wanted to suggest improvements on they way they communicate and run the organisation. This feedback was sent before Xmas via emails and letters. By ignoring this they also alienated potential allies. I was one of those people that forwarded the email and letters. I was ready to be an ally.
Now Im fed up with them. I don't want to see them dissolved, even now.... but I wont be crying if they do - eventually. It will be their fault... no-one else's: The associations - again - want what's best for us and are deeply frustrated with the EUC performance.
There are 2 ways that I can see the EUC dissolving. The legal appeals on their legality are successful - or - they continue to badly represent owners/residents and we have some form of repeat of the Canela situation. Either way we need the associations.
Another solution is the associations get a lot of representation - and keep the un-dissolved EUC in line. This is a good option as well... and less 'fire-damage'!
So I stress to everybody - get involved with the associations. They are a major part of any conceivable outcome... and need our support.
They should also take whatever action necessary to get the bank guarantees. I think they know ALL the feedback... so I will now wait for them to reveal the results of their initial meetings.
Regards
Jon
Recently I have been responding to posts that I felt were wrong on a couple of major points. Block votes from presidents and legal powers of associations. I remain firmly of the view that there is no block vote and, yes, an association DOES have legal powers... and I use the Canela example to show just how much power they can actually have. In addition Ive made some other points too.
I have lost faith in the EUC organisation, based on what Ive seen. And its my belief that the Associations have arrived for one reason only - mass dissatisfaction with the EUC board... Thus the assocs. are born wanting to create something that really represents the owners. Whilst the EUC board appear somehow to have other priorities.
I have no proof of any EUC wrong doing, but I have a nagging feeling that something strange is going on. Lets leave it at that.
However I have never advocated that the EUC is dissolved. In fact I was hoping that they would listen to resident feedback, which was supportive of them and wanted to suggest improvements on they way they communicate and run the organisation. This feedback was sent before Xmas via emails and letters. By ignoring this they also alienated potential allies. I was one of those people that forwarded the email and letters. I was ready to be an ally.
Now Im fed up with them. I don't want to see them dissolved, even now.... but I wont be crying if they do - eventually. It will be their fault... no-one else's: The associations - again - want what's best for us and are deeply frustrated with the EUC performance.
There are 2 ways that I can see the EUC dissolving. The legal appeals on their legality are successful - or - they continue to badly represent owners/residents and we have some form of repeat of the Canela situation. Either way we need the associations.
Another solution is the associations get a lot of representation - and keep the un-dissolved EUC in line. This is a good option as well... and less 'fire-damage'!
So I stress to everybody - get involved with the associations. They are a major part of any conceivable outcome... and need our support.
They should also take whatever action necessary to get the bank guarantees. I think they know ALL the feedback... so I will now wait for them to reveal the results of their initial meetings.
Regards
Jon
Mar 11th 2010, 10:24 am
#582
Forum Regular
Joined: Apr 2008
Location: costa esuri
Posts: 104
Re: Costa Esuri - Ayamonte - EUC
[QUOTE=Jon-Bxl;8412032]Hi I want to address a couple of points.
Recently I have been responding to posts that I felt were wrong on a couple of major points. Block votes from presidents and legal powers of associations. I remain firmly of the view that there is no block vote and, yes, an association DOES have legal powers... and I use the Canela example to show just how much power they can actually have. In addition Ive made some other points too.
Hi Jon
The bloc votes from presidents does not exist in the associations.
While in the communities meetings the president represents all the owners, including those who have not voted him for president, in the associations all members have voice and vote.
Anyone can have this information in any Spanish neighbours/owners association.
http://huelvavecinal.com/index.php?m...acto&m=7&ver=7
Recently I have been responding to posts that I felt were wrong on a couple of major points. Block votes from presidents and legal powers of associations. I remain firmly of the view that there is no block vote and, yes, an association DOES have legal powers... and I use the Canela example to show just how much power they can actually have. In addition Ive made some other points too.
Hi Jon
The bloc votes from presidents does not exist in the associations.
While in the communities meetings the president represents all the owners, including those who have not voted him for president, in the associations all members have voice and vote.
Anyone can have this information in any Spanish neighbours/owners association.
http://huelvavecinal.com/index.php?m...acto&m=7&ver=7
Mar 20th 2010, 10:26 am
#583
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Jun 2005
Location: Puente Esuri
Posts: 6,903
Re: Costa Esuri - Ayamonte - EUC
I hope you will all note that the first call for the first meeting of the CE Residents association which is the next level down from the EUC has been posted elswhere and is on Thursday 25th March at 19.00 hrs in the Golf Clubhouse.
Mar 21st 2010, 7:54 am
#584
BE Positive
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 3,980
Re: Costa Esuri - Ayamonte - EUC
Sorry we wont be there for the meeting of the CE Residents association but good luck! We are all behind you
Jon
Mar 23rd 2010, 6:31 am
#585
BE Positive
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 3,980
Re: Costa Esuri - Ayamonte - EUC
http://britishexpats.com/forum/showp...0&postcount=15
Thanks
Jon