Excuse me Fred.....and let me just say I respect you and all your very informative responses on here, great to have someone like you on here

I have done legal conveyancing in England and I would NEVER let something like this slip by me. In Spain **it happens. It's the way it works here, particularly if you don't know the language and rely on a translator. Don't even go there!!! End of discussion!

Oh, and Fred, no hard feelings

Sadly at the time of purchase (6yrs ago I believe),this was true.Corruption was rife!
It is only in the past year or so that the Authorities have been coming down hard on this sort of thing.For example the Andulucian Gov has promised to go through the region "inch by inch"
Personally I think,in this case,there was corruption in the initial conversion of the building,(someone, somewhere turned a blind eye,or where blinded by Euro signs!),followed on by outright criminality in the mistranslation.
"Caveat emptor"would be applicable in the case of the purchaser missing something,somewhere,it does not apply when there is a deliberate, pre meditated attempt to decieve!

Bloody hell!,I typed that entire thing,then realised I qouted the WRONG person
Sorry Lionda,I MEANT to qoute Fred

Couldn't have put it better myself (although I would have quoted the right person )

Why not try and see it from two other possibilities :

1> Something was lost in translation, in my line of work it happens A LOT on both sides of the language barrier.

2> The clients were so excited about signing on the dotted line(s) for their lovely new home that they accidentally switched off for the brief 5 second period when someone said "Property is not habitable" or something similar.

I'm not saying that EITHER are the case here, but as you have only heard one side of the story, not even directly from that side then EVERYTHING is a possibility.

That's why it's incredibly important to NEVER ever get a verbal translation as it's not worth the paper it's not wrote on.

I feel dreadful for the people involved as it's their home and they run the real risk of becoming homeless, but to side with either party from the facts given at the moment is just wrong.

The OP asked for advice and there has only been a very small amount of that and lots of assumptions and quite frankly comments that are could land the posters in hot water if found to be untrue.

It only takes the OP to post something more personal, specific details and then the other party Googles say the location, or the name(s) and up pops this thread where people have some of the comments made could land someone with their own court case and more importantly harm any chance of the people affected getting any money back or a resolution to the matter. It does happen and more than you think.

I'm getting dizzy, what's going on?

Perhaps the OP could clear up wether the translation was written or verbal?
With regard to "hot water",no one here would land in it,as none of the posts is defammatory in anyway,no one is named,so therefore deffammation of character could not be proven.
Personally I still stand by my posts,in that they would not go to jail,but are likely to lose the property if things dont go there way.
I do agree that compensation etc is arrived at more often than is given credit for

Cant take it anymore,had to unbar RM,ned to know what hes saying

I wouldn't.

Defamation (of a character) and Libelous comments are two different things when it comes to business and that's who are involved. It's extremely difficult to prove defamation of character even if you have something in writing, however much easier if a coment is libelous towards a company.

You have absolutely no control over what is posted from this point onwards, So if something more personal was posted and thus being able to pinpoint the case then yes posters who have said something was 'corrupt' that is libelous if found to be untrue.

Anyway, I've made me point and my attempt at stopping the silly comments and getting it back on track to help the poster has backfired, so that's the end of this conversation on my part.

Heres something that may be of int to the OP.
Property that has been illegally built,or in this case converted,doesnt necc,ALWAYS,get demolished it can be saved by use of the "Good Faith" clause,(or other defences).In that the purchaser bought the place in good faith that ALL the necc permissions had been granted.This clause has been succesfully used 100's of times,most notably by an (unnammed)ex Prime minister.
However,its not magic, and does need to be proven

Illegal property IS always demolished if the property is on land that is classified as public,or specialy protected

Google must be working overtime!

Certainly is,had to regoogle,something I googled last year.

Its amazing what information from last year is now defunct eh?

Possibly

Razor.