Jon, that's well and good and is your own personal opinion,,, and obviously the rest of those big boys and girl in CE will equally determine their own opinions all based on their personal experiences and knowledge. And all without being forced by anybody…
You say, your own preference is, as an individual, to wait for the "ok" from CERA but Jon, seriously, even you seem to agree that the "old CERA" was less useful than a chocolate teapot and granted you want to give the "new CERA" a chance,,, and in this you are right,,,
But what use do you seriously think this new crowd will do? Are they going to research the legalities and illegalities, the constitution, the past paperwork and so on, in order to make their determination as to whether a fully qualified and legal body has any chance to progress with this initiative. What legal standing does this “new CREA” have in order to analyse this initiative in order to offer their “ok”… to you. If any of this new CERA had that knowledge, experience and more importantly, inclination, they would have forced this issue years ago, instead of watching the old CERA organise parties and send flowers to processions in Ayamonte.
Was cancelling the EUC discussed at your meeting last week? or were flower and parties talked about...?

To imply that PabloVicente’s motives are to cold call and drum up trade is an insult and simply shows your own cynicism and naivety. PabloVicente is new to this forum and unknown to probably anyone involved with this forum. All you have to do is look at his web site,, his business is several hundred miles from Costa Esuri so it seems most likely that your implication is way out of order and quite seriously uncalled for.
Whereas your hard sell for CERA was not intending to drum up business, was it?
Put your faith there but don’t expect everyone else to follow suit. Sometimes the soft sell works better.

You mentioned lots of disappointments; all of which were mostly due to the rumours, gossiping and speculation which spreads like wildfire on this forum and around CE - rose tinted glasses spring to mind.
If people would just look at the facts and figures and add a little common sense, then there would be less to be disappointed in because the reality of the situation would prevail.

PabloVince has already replied to your comment about the “promise”. There were no guarantees or promises in his initial post.
There is never a guarantee with any legal action, so anyone who joins in the class action will need to understand that before entering into the process.
A legal body has offered to campaign against a serious injustice which has affected every property owner in Costa Esuri; obviously caution is necessary before joining in on any campaign but that’s what questions, answers and information gathering is for….
Give the man a chance… and let’s not be so arrogant to try to tell him how to do his job.

Wow I never thought you and I would have a barney ...

This is a 'two-bottler', I think to chat about together over a few glasses - I'll get them both!

I never did insult Pablo. I talked about the possibility, in bold text, coloured text, highlighted text etc

As a seasoned forum user - you have seen many cases of people marketing on the forum.. so it is a obviously a possibility to consider. You call it 'naivety' strangely enough I think of it diametrically opposite - 'experience'. I think you are wrong here.

Also my business experience tells me that knowing the clients concerns are the best way to counter them.. as a professional Pablo has had to deal with far worse, and my comments wont phase a true pro. He will know how to handle them. Converting concerned people is a big win and proves someones credibility.

Pablo has said he wants to speak to CERA... so maybe this discussion has made that happen. Cant be a bad thing can it? Also I have said several times that I hope Pablo takes them to court - I want him to get the business, (and as said several times also, I am prepared to pay!) but for me personally (for reasons that you reject), I need that OK from CERA. Others wont need it ... you wont. And you think I'm a plonker for needing it - when I should be able to make up my own mind.

Again its not 'my' CERA, the meeting was not attended by me, in fact I am not even a member yet as I will pay my dues next week.

Why am I paying dues - because I want to give them a chance. And surprisingly I live in hope. You have already decided against them... You say that my posts may influence people, but if your argument is true your posts will too. So if you're right, many people will feel concerned or even negative, like you, about CERA now. You make some of the best arguments on this sub-forum, and people (like me) give you a lot of time/respect... even if we disagree.

I suspect we agree on a lot more stuff than the stuff we disagree on.

Jon

3rd bottle on you

Jon/Alice
you need to get a room!
Take some chill pills with your plonk

Jon, its not a barney is it ,,, just because there is an opposing view, isn’t it just healthy debate,,!
Sincere apology to you, for anything which may have caused any offence.,..
Seems like the topic has turned into a debate about the CREA,, who are getting a lot of free advertising! And even you are not a member... On this one, lets agree to disagree,, and later on one of us can say told you so..
PabloVicente was probably going to speak to CERA anyway, as a professional it seems likely he had always intended to cover all bases for maximum exposure.

Thinking you're a plonker,,, no,,,, that’s not my style.... Neither is influencing in either direction,, facts and figures are always the best way to go. At the end of the day, everyone makes up their own mind and using your own gut feeling is always going to be your own best option.

So, let’s make up and get back on topic,,, whatever way it unfolds my sincere hope is that PabloVicente receives a lot of support from all corners of Costa Esuri.
Al

Agreed: and if I went overboard, sorry... And to any readers that I might have annoyed. EUC = emotive stuff!

Looking fwd to more details of Pablos proposal, and really hope to see the EUC oficially answering to us all about their 'activities' over the past few years.

Still pals, of course and looking forward to meeting up very soon over a glass or two.

Jon

If I could play Devil's Advocate for a bit, hopefully bring a bit of balance.

Firstly, I would suggest that there is actually a need for an organisation like the EUC ought to be. After all, when Martinsa Fedesa went bust Ayamonte was left with a big problem - who was going to pay for the ongoing maintenance of a half completed development? I have a lot of sympathy for the view of the average Ayamontino - as expressed by the Town Hall and the Mayor - why should the citizens of Ayamonte pick up the costs? In their view, rightly or wrongly, a load of rich Brits, Madrilenos and Sevillanos had been investing in property on their doorstep, many of whom were buying off-plan and hoping to flip a profit on their investment and end up with a relatively cheap home in the sun. It all went pear shaped through no fault of Ayamonte and yet the Costa Esurians were starting to demand that the Town Hall pick up the costs.

The Mayor, again rightly or wrongly, saw that the creation of an organisation specifically to look after CE - paid for by all the property owners - was a possible fair solution. The Spanish property laws do provide for such an organisation and there are many throughout Spain. This is where it gets murky. As we all know when politicians get involved nothing is simple. The EUC was proposed, a meeting called and a voting quorum achieved which brought the EUC into being. The process was rushed through and was certainly not transparent and, therefore, is open to all sorts of criticism - one of which is that it was not done legitimately. However, the EUC was duly registered, arrangements for fee collection made with the Tributaria and a board of management elected (or self-selected if you will). MF was a major player on the EUC as is the Town Hall, which is only right as they actually have the responsibility. They, however, neglected one vital factor - the owners!

The owners were, and still are, furious. Many are refusing to pay the dues. The EUC, therefore, has insufficient funds which means it is unable to carry out the things it should be doing. This makes the residents even more cross especially as one of the biggest owners (MF themselves) is also not making its contribution. We have a vicious circle, or rather a downward spiral. The only victims will be us - the owners - if this does not get resolved.
IMHO the only way that Costa Esuri is going to survive, let alone flourish, is if the basic maintenance and services are carried out properly – and this needs money. Until there is sufficient income from IBI from CE then it seems to me unreasonable for the citizens of Ayamonte to carry the cost as they get very little real benefit (there are not enough long-term residents and healthy tourism to have any significant impact on Ayamonte’s economy at the moment - maybe in the future??).

However much we as owners may not like the way the EUC was foisted on us and dispute its legitimacy, it is arguably technically legal. The class action proposed will test the legal opinion of counsel for the EUC against the legal opinion of some owners at great length and cost. We are all aware of how long legal proceedings take in any jurisprudence. And to what end? If the plaintiffs win then it will be a pyrrhic victory since there is no money in the pot to pay back, let alone pay the legal costs. In the meantime Costa Esuri will no longer have what little maintenance and services it can currently afford and will be a wasteland.

Let’s try and be realistic. I understand how angry and frustrated the owners and residents are, I share that anger and frustration. But we may be in danger of cutting off our noses to spite our faces in trying to punish Martinsa Fadesa for all its failings and bad faith.

The EUC exists, however flawed, and it would be a much wiser investment of any legal argument, time and expense to FIX it and get it working for the benefit of the residents and owners as well as the Town Hall. The statutes of the EUC are fatally flawed and are totally undemocratic – they have been gerrymandered to ensure the survival of a small power clique around MF and therefore the EUC does not fairly represent the interests of all the parties. The statutes need to be changed – and quickly (there are many examples similar organisations, which work, to use as examples). New and open elections need to be conducted as soon as possible and most importantly the legal status needs to be clarified and everybody should start making their contributions. Otherwise Costa Esuri will soon be bankrupt and all our investments, homes and holiday homes will be worthless.

An approach might be if PabloVicente were to work with CERA – maybe as counsel for CERA (on a pro-bono basis !!) – in its dealings with the EUC. Give the new improved CERA committee a chance to perform. After all CERA was originally set up to stand up to the EUC and is legally constituted. At least one of the committee is an intercommunity president and therefore has a seat as of right on the EUC board (although because of the inequity of the statutes is effectively disenfranchised). I believe CERA has 200/300 members now, distributed 50:50 between Spanish and Foreign residents and is therefore pretty representative. IMHO it is time to put aside past prejudices for the common good of Costa Esuri. Give CERA the support and legal advice it needs to take on the EUC and win the concessions necessary to make the EUC democratic and truly representative and make Costa Esuri a great place to live!

First of all I would like to thank MikeJ for making what is a very reasoned and well argued case, without emotional or histrionic comments. While agreeing with many of his statements I have added here my own slightly differing views and observations.

Initially, I am not totally convinced of the need for an EUC. Without a thorough review of the accounts, it is difficult to say What monies are necessary to provide maintenance and development services to Costa Esuri. MikeJ also seems to overlook that as residents/owners in Costa Esuri we pay our rates to the town hall in the same way as do other Ayamontinos. Also, residents, permanent or temporary, make a significant contribution to the economy of Ayamonte. We are not asking the citizens of Ayamonte (which includes residents of Costa Esuri) to "pick up the costs".

I am also not sure that the initiative for the creation of the EUC can be laid at the door of the Mayor. If you bought directly from Fadesa, you will see in your legal documents the proposal for the EUC. If you bought from someone else, that clause is probably not there. That is why several residents who purchased their properties from a non-Fadesa company were advised by their lawyers not to pay any EUC fees.

The EUC board, as MikeJ says, was "elected" without any transparency. Fadesa have no place on this board at all and we also have other non-residents voting on our future. Indeed many residents are concerned that there is aa apparent clear conflict of interest in at least one of the board members voting to award contracts in areas of his own business interests.

I am not arguing that there should not be an EUC. What I am strongly advocating is that we get rid of the one we have got and replace it, if necessary, with something better. It is clear that we will not achieve that while the current EUC board consists mainly of people who do not have the interests of Costa Esuri uppermost in their minds. I personally also believe that that this will not be achieved without legal action. There are far too many vested interests at work on the EUC board and as far as I can see, no democratic process by which we can influence any EUC meetings or policies. As MikeJ correctly states, we, as owners/residents are effectively disenfranchised. One hope I do have is that Fadesa will soon cease to be as a business. That will create vacancies on the board and perhaps a chance for us as residents to gain direct representation and information.

The class action is, in my opinion at least, is probably the only way to get rid of the current incumbents. I am told, but I have not verified this information, that Isla Canela "got rid" of their EUC through legal action. If this is true it shows it is possible. Even if we were successful, we would need to act quickly and legally to set up a new EUC, if that is what we want. That actually raises a very important question - do we know what we (Costa Esurians) want or need?

This issue should be at the very top of the agenda for any and all CERA meetings. If it is not, then what is CERA for? I agree that they should, if at all possible work with PabloVicente, although we should realise that there may be some cost involved. But equally, CERA is a vehicle for debating and agreeing a way forward on this subject.

So after all the above, I would fully endorse MikeJ's final paragraph. If any member of the CERA executive committee is reading this forum can we have a considered reply please. If none is forthcoming I am sure that someone can present the case to CERA in the near future.

What a super post with which I totally agree! It was with some relief that I read such an in-depth, accurate, common-sensical, well-argued, analysis of this issue, so different from most of the previous, rather shallow, often inaccurate utterances. IMHO it is better to continue to feed the goose, but to prod it in order to try to get it to lay some golden eggs, rather than kill it.

I also agree with much of what MikeCol says. However, I feel that if we get rid of the EUC prior to forming a replacement, it is likely to result in the latter element never happening, and that would not do us any good. I agree that CERA should hoist aboard this issue , but I do not see then achieving much more than just being a discussion forum.

The recent minutes of the meeting between the Deputy Mayor and CERA on 9th June give some cause for optimism, and IMHO it would be much better to fix the existing EUC, rather than killing it and starting again. It depends on the good intentions turning into achievable actions and goals in a reasonable timeframe.

We can all see the effects of throwing out an organisation without having a ready made replacement to immediately take over, on the Golf Course.

The more I think about this the more strange it seems. If it is claimed that the EUC is an illegal entity then surely it would not be possible to sue them without admitting that they have some legal standing. If it is illegal then it could not have any liabilities or responsibilities - and we know that it has no money - so what is the point of a class action?

It would be the Town Hall that would have to be sued, IMHO it's probably better to stay on the right side of the Town Hall if we want any sort of services at all!!

I would be very interested in finding out more please

There is no doubt that Spanish law provides for the introduction of an EUC on large multi house type Urbanisations such as CE. IT WOULD NORMALLY COME INTO OPERATION WHEN THE DEVELOPER HAD FINISHED HIS WORK AND ASKED THE AYUNTAMIENTO TO FORMALLY ADOPT THE INFRASTUCTURE.

It would take care of the development until the adoption took place (up to 20 years has been estimated).

What is less certain is if it can be introduced for an unfinished development such as CE. As you would expect in theses uncertain times this has happened in other parts of Spain. Some courts have tested this with as many decisions for as against but with the certainty that the Ayuntamiento will appeal an adverse decision to the highest court since they do not have the costs of the litigant which are now very expensive indeed.

As some of you have suggested in recent posts, an EUC is not per se illegal, but, since the Municipality is responsible by law to provide a whole series of services (maintenance included), an EUC may be imposed in a very few limited cases with extraordinary circumstances. In any case, an EUC, if first complied with some formalities in its constitution (which is not the case here), then it can be sustained only if (among other requisites) it is made for a definite period of time and there is an economic impossibility of the Council to face the maintenance services.

Well, the EUC was constituted back in 2005 (although it did not come into operation until 2008) and by that time, I can tell you if you were not still here, the Ayamonte Council was one of the richest ones in Spain. So, they could not even dare to try to claim this because everybody knows that, and even if they tdare, they could not possibly justify it with numbers. Regarding the definite period of time, it is stated by the jurisprudence that if no definite period of time is stated, it is considered null since the very beginning or, in the worst of the scenarios, it is considered to last as much as 5 years (meaning from 2009 till 2013). As EsuriJohn has mentioned, the Courts have tested this in the past with decision for and against. But in 2006 the highest Court, the Supreme Court of Spain, knowing about the contradictory decisions, made a decision "en casación de doctrina" meaning unification of doctrine, to state the illegallity of such EUCs. Attached you can find the Decision of the Supreme Court of Spain (sorry, it is in Spanish) containing all these arguments.

These are the legal arguments. Now, I am going to tell you the reality. The reality is that they know they cannot do this, that the EUC is illegal in this case since the very beginning. As some of you might know they tried in the past exactly the same in Isla Canela, but they did not do it because they found the challenge of people from Isla Canela, so they discontinued the EUC. What happened?? Nothing. Isla Canela was not abandoned at all, actually, I can tell you it is nace place to stay, Some people believe that if the Ayamonte Council gets angry because of this class action, they will stop any service in Costa Esuri. This is not true, they just cannot, they are obliged to by law (art. 26 of the Ley de Reglamento de Bases de Régimen Local). The reality is that the Ayamonte Council does not care about Costa Esuri. They put the EUC and made us finance its activities. Do not even think that the extra fee we pay is used in Costa Esuri. We pay our IBI in exchange of the muncipality services, they get the IBI we pay and they use it everywhere else other than in Costa Esuri, and as a substitute they spend only part of the maintenance fee and the bonds from the bank in Costa Esuri. They just do it, and they know that eventually we might discover and may be we will bring an action to challenge all this. But you know what? they do not care, because at the end of the day, the Ayamonte Council knows that half of us are British or foreigners and the other half are from everywhere else in Spain othen than Ayamonte. SO, at the end of the day, they say: "They (people from Costa Esuri) cannot even vote here! Come on, let's do it, there will be no consequences of our acts. They are not going to complain and if they complain, I do not care because they do not vote here. I just want their money"

I am sorry to tell you this, but it is not only true but obvious. That's it. I can understand that some of you prefer to accept this and go ahead with your lifes. But do not think for a moment that if something has come to existence it must be legal. If you have lived in Ayamonte for some years already, you know how things work in Spain and specifically in Andalucía. It is not only something that began with the construction boom, it is something that happened in the past and still happens.

You have my support and you will be surprised how many will join this cause despite the attempt against it from some organisation that pretend to convince us that they are "defending" the interests of the residents in Costa Esuri!!