“We offer a different life-style, close to nature and the beach with a view to practice sports within an unbeatable environment and with all the facilities that the client may need. Also, owing to an agreement between the prestigious hotel chain De Vere, specialists in golf accommodation, we will be able to offer the services of a luxury hotel and a Spa.”

It´s February 2010 and la verdad is that there is no hotel, just as much as there is no equestrian centre, sports facilities, swimming pools, tennis club, private gym, commercial centre and a number of other amenities that were the primary reason for a couple of hundred people to buy in this development.

We took an interest in this case after being contacted by a few persons who had bought in Corvera Golf and Country Club, and after agreeing to take up their cases, a lawyer of the firm and a sort of specialist forensic valuer went over to draw up a report on the resort and it’s (lacking) facilities, and indeed it appears that many of them never left Corvera architect’s drawing boards, and are therefore just that, “un sueño” (a dream), as it reads on the bottom left part of the original promotional plan embedded in this post.

This is conclusive that a degree of contractual default has taken place, which will entitle buyers to file for cancellation of the contracts on the basis of misrepresentation. It is then up to the lawyers to argue the case successfully, with as much ammunition as possible (contracts, brochures, articles, witnesses, including Olazabal if required), and propel it to a successful conclusion for our clients, judge permitting.

In a similar claim we filed against Manilva Costa and Ocean View Properties, the judge of First Instance in Estepona granted contractual rescission as he found that the developer “misrepresented and misled buyers by promising, through marketing literature, facilities such as top restaurants, shops, a health and leisure club, tennis courts, Turkish baths, sauna, Jacuzzi, fully equipped gymnasium, heated pool and kindergarten service, and it is clear that none of those have been built”. He then added that “from the documents submitted to this Court, it has been established beyond doubt that the publicizing of these facilities in brochures was a fundamental element in the buyer’s decision to buy, as collectively they had induced him to proceed with the purchase of a property which was located in a relatively isolated development and distant from similar facilities.”

With respect to buyers in Corvera Golf and Country Club Phase IV, the above can be irrelevant because their properties have not even been built and therefore contractual default will come from delayed completion. The rest of phases seem to have been built more or less on time, that is, within 18 months from the date of issue of planning permission (such is the delivery date on the contract) so we are reluctant to base the case on this argument.

As with many other Court cases, we will play the devil’s advocate so as to test the quality of our legal arguments and identify weaknesses in its structure and content since Corvera will fight this case to the end. But still, the De Vere 5 star hotel is just not there!

Our case is due to be filed within days. We will keep anyone with an interest in this development posted through this blog.

–

Update March, 03 – 2010: Photos taken last week of the unfinished facilities have been added below:

On Courts/Litigation

1. Court costs are very high in Spain. Not at all, there are no Court costs because court proceedings are free (it’s called “justicia gratuita”) except if you decide to go the Supreme Court (these magistrates are a bunch of snobs and so may request you pay a deposit). It is the lawyers who will charge you the money together with the procurators (who inexplicably have yet not been eliminated as they are totally superfluous and have the habit of falling asleep in Court hearings). But if you have a good case and you win it is likely that legal fees will be awarded on the losing party and therefore you will be reimbursed. Obviously the contrary may happen if you lose in which case fees can double.
2. You will lose if you litigate against a Spaniard or a Spanish company because the system protects them: TOTAL RUBBISH. Yes, I can see the black continent from my terrace but this does not mean that we live in a banana African republic (not yet though). Never have I heard, been told or read any complaints from anyone to the effect of denouncing the judiciary system for judging on patriotic grounds.
3. Never litigate in Spain, it will take 10 years: yes, if you decide to go all the way to the Supreme Court. But the average for a Court of First Instance ruling is 14 months and we all know that time flies…

On Contracts with Developers and Bank Guarantees

Lately, a very popular topic on legal-gossip websites:

1. I have a contract with a developer, don’t want to proceed and I have been advised by someone with a zillion posts on an expat website forum that a particular lawyer will succeed because he/she is an expert in Consumer Protection Law: run away, would not touch it with a barge pole! The reason is simple: no decent lawyer will want this type publicity because it is immoral. Lawyers should never give sweeping legal advice on a particular subject without reading a contract and analyzing all elements. Those who fail to follow this principle are regarded as ambulance chasers.
2. I have a bank guarantee/insurance policy and therefore can just cash it and walk away: NO, this would defeat the purpose of the bank guarantee which is to protect the investor from a failed property investment and not serve as a getaway facility. You can however cancel and try to execute, directly or through the Courts, where notoriously a delay has taken place. Results are varied, from banks/insurers paying happily to refusing point bank, with similar results when going to Courts (recently Banesto has accepted to pay 80% of 11 deposits they were guaranteeing in a Court case we filed against them and their client, Promaga).
3. Statutory Force majeure and Acts of God are not applicable in Spanish law: WHY NOT? Article 1.105 of the Spanish Civil Code, in force since the 19th century, says the contrary. Developers can excuse themselves for not completing on time if they can prove that the delay was caused by events catalogued as any of the two.
4. The developer has delivered my property one month late and therefore they are at default and have to return my money, by law: NO judge will accept this unless specifically written into the contract and no developer is stupid enough to have done that. The exact amount of days or months of delay will depend on the wording of the contract, the reasons for the delay, the judge ruling the case (some say that 3 months is enough and others say that 9 months does not defeat the economical purpose of the contract and so it is insufficient).
5. I bought a new property, I could not complete, the developer delivered on time and summoned me for completion, after which they cancelled. I have lost my deposit and cannot do anything. Not always. It is quite possible that the contract was a one-sided agreement because it was entered with the developer at a time when they had (limited) precious properties for seemingly endless numbers of keen property investors (i.e., property boom) and so it was a case of take-it-or-leave sort of agreement. The consequence of this is that clauses which can be considered as unequal, could not be negotiated at the time of buying, are not reciprocal and are not proportioned are null and void. This includes the clause where the buyer loses the deposit if he does not complete if the developer does not include one where he will refund twice the deposit if he too fails.
6. I have bought a property from a developer and therefore I am a consumer, which gives me the right to cancel the contract if I wish: No, careful! Being a consumer does not mean that you have every right, if you wish to pull out, to cancel your contract and demand your monies back. There are times where developers have fully complied with the contract and there is little hope in successfully winning a case for contractual default, in fact they are open to enforce completion of the transaction, both in Spain and in your own country if they deem it appropriate.
7. I wish to cancel my off-plan contract and I’ve been told I have a “Solid Case”. You may well have one, a very strong one in fact, in which case cashing that bank guarantee is a plausible option and alternatively a Court case. But once again be cautious: there are some pseudo-legal website forums where you are told pretty much that no matter what you have done and/or the developer has done you always always have a ’strong case’. To put a comparison it’s like a doctor telling a moribund terminally ill patient that no matter how serious the ailing is they will make a quick recovery (I could not find a less graphic comparison but it is how I see it). Examples of this are for example fallacies such as the one that says if you don’t get a mortgage you can pull out in any case, or that one whereby if the developer is late by 1 month you can pull out.

This list is by far comprehensive so if you come across anymore do let us know!

In the Costa del Sol, and definitely in the rest of Costas, many foreign individuals seek advice for legal issues, but they use neither traditional legal advisers nor less formal legal sources. Instead, in the majority of cases (reportedly three quarters!) they obtain advice from family and friends, and from a broad range of non-legal professionals, including professionals working in many other fields who are known to the information seeker. They also have the habit of roaming through expat forums with the hope of getting the answer they wish to listen, and which rarely conforms to reality (unfortunately). Thus, there appears to be an informal network of non-legal practitioners who are routinely consulted by people with legal problems and who have created a parallel case law which is simply wrong.

You will know what I am writing about when you read some the beliefs spread in our Costas during years of pseudo-legalese innuendo, hearsay and gossip in bars and pubs, “chiringuitos”, Christmas Dos and other socializing events appropriately lubricated with abundant booze. Lets start with a few:

Spanish Wills & Inheritance

1. Die without a will and the Spanish Government will snap up everything: this is a classic I must have clarified at least 999 times. NO, Spanish law does not say this, it says that if you die without a will then you die intestate, in which case your personal national law applies, and only if no inheritors turn up will the Spanish Government ultimately claim ownership (someone has to!). As an example, according to Hubert Bocken and Walter de Bondt (Introduction to Belgian Law) most Belgian married people with children die intestate and therefore Belgian rules will apply, with usufruct rights passing to the heirs. This will happen too to any Spanish property or asset owned by a Belgian national because his/her law says so.
2. My English will is not valid in Spain: it is perfectly valid but it needs to be translated, legalized and the authorship confirmed by the Spanish Courts. Of course, it better include Spanish or worldwide assets because otherwise it has not relevance. The best option in this case is to obtain grant of probate by the Courts that can then be legalized and translated for its use in Spain.

Spanish Rental agreements

1. My tenant is not paying, I will change the locks: FORGET IT, you can end up in the gallows for this because it is trespassing.
2. My tenant is not paying; I will cancel the electricity and water supplies: CAREFUL, doing this is punishable under the Spanish Criminal Code as it is considered to be coercion and/or harassment.
3. My landlord has not made some repairs I have asked him to do so I am deducting the repair costs from the rent. NO, if you do this you can get evicted. Rent has to be paid every month, religiously, and if you want to ask him to carry out remedial work on the property you have to notify him formally. They are 2 separate issues and cannot be mixed up because the law has established this.
4. I have an 11 month contract which I am told is short term and so I will be able to kick the tenant out on expiration of the term: FALSE, all residential rental contracts can be challenged and extended up to 5 years, optional for the tenant and mandatory for the owner. A registration certificate with the local Town Hall will suffice to invoke this.
5. My contract is in German so it is not valid: A very common fallacy. Any document which can be translated by a registered or certified translator or interpreter is valid in a Court of law.

More to come on my next Post!

I don’t intend to make an analysis or comparison between the different jurisdictions in place across the EU but because Eleanor’s article coincided in time with a labour dispute we had in our office I would like to expand a bit on the opposite, that is, how can a pregnant worker who wishes to never work again (judging by her acts it cannot be otherwise) take advantage of Spanish laws and endlessly link a series of leave periods of different nature to avoid coming back to work and all the while getting paid.

In our case, the worker, who was pregnant, had verbally agreed that she would take maternity leave for a number of months and on her return she would resign, taking with her a reasonable package. She had her baby and it all went well and good until she was due back in the office to implement the agreement we had, when she decided that the agreement was no longer good enough for her because she could get far more from us (inasmuch as even though she is not working the employer still has to pay) and from the social security system…

Chronologically, the events can be summarised as follows:

1. Sick leave (high risk pregnancy/painful back): 23 weeks
2. Maternity leave: 16 weeks
3. Breastfeeding leave: 2 weeks
4. Holidays: 4 weeks
5. Sick leave again (anxiety this time): 9 weeks… and counting.

When I spoke to a colleague with vast expertise in labour to ask him for some advice, he broke into a laughter and reproached me that “it served me well for hiring women of a certain age because they were explosive devices which detonate by pregnancy”. I don’t have to say how much I disapproved his comment, but it had me thinking for some moments after which he said that the only way to tackle this problem was to reach an agreement with the employee because, in his experience, Courts in Spain would always rule in their favour and until reaching a ruling I would still have to pay wages and social security cover (a horrific 30% of the salary!)

Two months later received another registered letter with acknowledgement of content (burofax) indicating that she was pregnant again…

Aside from this, it appears that, due to the crisis, some employees are taking their employers to Court in spite of pre-agreed work conditions that don’t suit them any longer. As an example I can cite two typical examples:

1. Employer hires under the condition that the employee will not claim the extortionate 45 days of salary per year worked (the famous “finiquito”, which is considered to be one of the causes of our near to 20% unemployment and 25% in Andalucía). The employee agrees gleefully and shakes hands but when he loses his job he reneges on the deal due to the fact that these rights cannot be waived and takes his employer to the cleaners.
2. Employer enters a contract with a self employed worker (autonomo), which is a contract typically used in the real estate industry and with some lawyers. Since plenty of case-law deems that this type of contract is used by employers to avoid social security and redundancy payments it can successfully be morphed to a full labour contract, through the Employment Tribunal, which will hit the employer, retrospectively, with a request for unpaid social security, fines, interest, redundancy etc. Enough to put anyone off employing in Spain forever!

I will finally add that in my experience, real estate workers, in particular sales representatives, have an extremely high ratio of honouring verbal agreements when fired under an “autonomo” contract, far more than lawyers hired under those same circumstances (sorry colleagues!).

So what it the solution to the above? According to the trend of our unemployment rate and our average salaries in comparison to the rest of Europe, there is only one solution (unions will blacklist me for saying this): don’t hire in Spain, or if you do, make sure salaries are very low, and if you can avoid it, don’t sign indefinite contracts!

Anyone who has been involved with opening a business will know that this legislation change is providing a legal framework to something which was de facto being done, that is, start running a business without having the permit which, in some Town Halls, was taking up to 12 months to grant. The problem us lawyers had with this was telling a client that yes, it was not a problem to open it whilst “mañana” Town Hall officials reviewed the papers and decided, after innumerable trips to the businesses department with fully stamped certificates from until-then-unknown technicians, to grant the bloody thing. Because although the above system was in practice, any unfriendly neighbour could call the local police to complain that a place was running without a license, and that automatically merited a visit and a fine (some of up to €1,200).

The Omnibus Act, as it is called, has replaced the requirement of having to apply for a business opening license with a Declaration of Responsibility, where the business owner needs only to assemble the paperwork and the technical certificates required and submit them to the Town Hall, followed by a statement confirming that the applicant has complied with the requirements undertaking to maintain these throughout the duration of the activity.  

But as usual the Act has a trap: the exemption of having to apply for a license leaves out all the activities which fall under the Environment Management Act which includes, inter alia, guns & ammunitions factories (thank God for that!), mineral extraction quarries, open air cattle, hog and livestock wholesaling, F1 circuits and many other unimaginable businesses, but also (and this is the trap) pubs, bars, restaurants, butchers, fishmongers, kebab corner shops and many other joints so popular in the Spanish coasts. So as far as we are concerned the new Act will pass by and large unnoticed.

Our advice had been consistent throughout the transaction, advising the client that we could see no grounds for pulling out. She had tried to convince us in turn that, according to what the agents had told her, the property should have had a certain orientation, with views to a certain place. We spoke to the developer to verify this but could not find indications of any contractual infringement from where to successfully launch a claim.

Some months after we received the standard fax from the above lawyer asking for all the documents, and soon after the developer’s lawyer summoned us to Court to give witness statement. Out of curiosity we picked the phone up and called the developer, to find out that they had been sued not for the property having the wrong views but for, and here we go… delayed completion!!

But something was not right in all of this because, according to some simple calculations made with our desktop Casio calculator, the delay was of…cero days!!! Our curiosity went even further and, when reading the claimant’s petition, we noticed that it looked like a copy and paste piece of work because it made no sense whatsoever. How could any lawyer in his right mind consider NO delay as a fundamental breach of contract? What advice did this lawyer give to the client when offering her legal services? How could this lawyer, when cross examining us, ask us questions which answers directly exposed the entire satisfaction of the client with the property? But the funniest thing of all was that our client admitted in Court that she had been at all times informed and updated by us of the course of the works, without her manifesting any dissent.

The outcome was as predictable as clockwork: The judge ruled in favour of the developer, and sentenced the claimant to pay the legal bill. (An ‘anonymized’ copy of the ruling is available upon request.)

The legal conclusions of this botched attempt to trick the judges can be summarized as follows:

1. Contractual extensions on property transactions are legal.
2. Force majeure and Acts of God grounds for opposition are valid under Spanish law in case of non-performance.
3. Lawyers should do a minimum pre-hearing preparation before entering the Court room if only to avoid, when cross-examining the previous lawyers, look very silly.
4. Lawyers should tell their clients that they can, and sometimes should, lie in Court when being cross-examined, because the other party will most certainly lie too! (there is no such thing as perjury in Spain).
5. Generally, lawyers should make their clients sign a disclaimer when persuading a client to start a Court case with no options whatsoever of winning a case.

From an economic point of view losing this case will mean a legal bill of between €20K, and nothing achieved. Too bad for reckless litigators!

From a legal point of view this is textbook contractual misrepresentation and any eager litigator would enjoy a hearing against Arenal 2000 developer lawyers (now Prienesur, or CajaSur) when comparing the undertakings made in the promotional literature with the photos taken by our surveyor:

“ The privileged owners of an apartment in Arenal Golf will benefit from both adult and children swimming pools, a fully-fitted gymnasium, two paddle/ tennis courts and a golf share in the exclusive ‘Arenal Golf’ 18 hole course that Arenal 2000 is building specially for the promotion”.

Also,

“Within the development there will be extensive landscaped garden areas with palm trees, rockeries and tropical plants.”

This is what the developer promissed purchasers: 

Artist's Impression shown on Arenal Golf Promotional Brochures

This is what the ‘golf course’ looks like today:

View of the 'Golf Course' at Arenal Golf on December 2009

It appears that already some action is being taken by local residents, one of which has managed to register the domain name www.arenalgolf.com, and has created an Arenal Golf forum and blog. However, it is not clear if any legal action is being taken against Prienesur/CajaSur and the Spanish Church, the ultimate owners of this mess.

Legally speaking, it may now be somewhat late to cancel the purchase and undo title deeds, etc., but for private purchase contract holders who are being asked to complete by Prienesur they should be able to oppose them quite successfully on the above mentioned grounds, in my opinion. However, I would loath to guarantee that this would be the case with every single judge. And the reason is that Prienesur could argue that this is not a fundamental breach of contract but a breach of an ancillary obligation which in no way impedes the economical objective or legitimate expectations of the buyer, who has received the promised unit (the basis for obtaining a favourable ruling).

What our firm is doing with the clients we represent is asking them to bring as much possible evidence of their craze for the sport, so as to prove that it was this and not the apartment in question that made up their minds to part with the money. This evidence could be in the form of golf membership cards back home, invoices proving they are avid golf equipment and paraphernalia buyers, pictures of them hitting a few balls with Tiger Woods and even divorce legal suits on grounds of desertion or abandonment due to excessive morning golf + evening pub crawling. After all, litigation is about law as much as it is about proving a point!

She told me that she had been approached by a company (did not disclose the name) offering her to put the property into a company so that the inheritance problem went away. As I found the enquiry rather strange I decided to make some research into this new proposal. When “googling” IHT Spain, I came across a company called Wincham Consultants Limited. The opening line was somewhat exciting and the following phrase caught my eye instantly:

“Wincham supply a service that we believe is the only legal way of truly safeguarding your assets against inheritance tax”. 

To my surprise, that service was the only legal service they were providing (other services included selling houses, renting cars and sourcing cheap flights). Well, this one and only service is no other than setting up a UK company and transferring the property to it.

Further on, I clicked on for more information and arrived at a specialized website in inheritance tax, www.winchamiht.com, whose only service in respect of this tax was, again, setting up UK companies. The opening pitch certainly scares the hell out of anyone:

“SPANISH PROPERTY OWNER? When the time comes…Your heirs WILL be hit with a 40%+ Inheritance Tax Bill unless you act now to protect your legacy” 

Which is another way to say:

SPANISH PROPERTY OWNER, when you pop your clogs you better have hired us because otherwise your children are going to be truly f****d!!

You see, the problem with these type of companies offering one single service is that any other alternative you come across is quickly dismissed with, at best, harsh negative criticism and at worst, untrue statements. The word impartiality disappears like sand slipping through your fingers and you never get the true picture.

Inheritance tax planning is a fairly complicated matter because each case is different. In other words, no solution is full-proof and certainly using a UK company is possibly the last best if not the worst. So when reading Wincham’s statements I could not but pick a few out and comment on them:

1. Wincham IHT claims that IHT in Spain is 40% +. The truth is that according to a most recent survey, the average IHT bill paid in Spain in three consecutive years has not been higher than 13% (per inheritor), on the taxable base (which rarely is the value of the property).
2. Winchan IHT claims that “your husband and wife will NOT be exempt from IHT”. The truth is that approximately 300,000 UK citizens residents of Spain may be exempt of IHT in respect of 95% of the value of the property when they inherit from their spouses, just like the rest of Spaniards!
3. Wincham IHT claims (FAQ number 14) that in terms of IHT the recipient of the UK company IS technically liable but subject to BPF (Business Property Relief). They then say that there are a number of rules surrounding this circumstance but that assuming that BPF is applicable then there would be no IHT. Good Christ!! This is like saying that if IHT disappeared altogether there would be no IHT, or if the planet world exploded then you would not have to worry either! The truth is that, for all it matters, BPF is ONLY applicable to relevant business property which is used for the purpose of, you guess, doing business, and this leaves out companies dealing in land or building companies making or holding investments (not to mention holiday homes). I am aware that the UK HMRC is now looking into claims for BPR very closely and in fact these are being sent to a department called Technical Team (Litigation) for detailed consideration. I cannot possibly see how the inheritors of our 82 year old expat living quietly in a 9th floor flat in Benidorm are going to get through the merciless Revenue & Customs officials when these get grab of the file. In summary, I would think that only a few properties could really qualify for BPF and even if they qualify it has to be pointed out that BPR is easy to lose… often at a time when IHT planning is most crucial.
4. Winchan claims that transferring ownership of a property from an Offshore company to a UK company will also completely remove Spanish IHT (FAQ number 17). The reality is that having property in an offshore company is possibly the most inheritance-tax efficient set up one can have so I cannot see why would some want to switch to one of the less inheritance tax-efficient set up.

To summarize, proposing only ONE system to minimize or mitigate Spanish IHT is in my opinion not sound advice. Inheritance tax can be reduced, avoided, evaded or even paid, as the case may be, and tools to achieve these may involve offshore companies, onshore companies, taking out mortgages, keeping quiet for 4 years and 6 months from the date of death of the testator (option chosen by some clients so as to have the tax obligation “timed out” under statute of limitations) and sometimes even incorporating UK companies, and only if a UK qualified accountant (ACCA or equivalent) signs a letter saying that no IHT is applicable in the UK.

The verdict I gave to our test-case Benidorm distressed lady, who wants to leave the property to 4 inheritors, was to draw-up her Spanish will and relax. And in respect of IHT? Well, do absolutely nothing because her €300K property would be transferred to her 4 children for a mere €5,800 per inheritor, or €23K in total, in application of the Spanish Inheritance Tax Act. Fees for setting up a UK company plus costs, taxes and miscellaneous were quoted at around €7,000 to which one would need to add transfer tax (€20,000), which means that this proposed scheme was rather more pointless and even counter-productive than essential.

So Wincham, don’t you think it’s all Much Ado About Nothing…?

State in which our client's apartment was left by a defaulting tenant

Great expectation has been raised now that the new law on rental eviction procedure and a few other bits and pieces has been approved. Because what this new law intends to do is to help boot a defaulting tenant in a matter of days, or so it seems when you read it (it now talks about “days” as opposed to “months”). The reality however is that for all its good intents and purposes it is quite possible that landlords will still have to resort to switching off water and electricity supplies, calling in a couple of Liverpool heavies or hiring a failed guitarist to make nights unbearable by playing “Stairway to Heaven” outside the apartment for hours on end. The reason is that, even if the new law is clearly envisaged to speed up kicking out tenants, the stark reality is that Courts in Spain are so slow that it is difficult to see how switching procedures (to a quicker one) and reducing significantly the time to comply with an eviction notice (fifteen days) can succeed.

According to a report released by a Law Firm in Barcelona (Alboreca Abogados de Vivienda), after reading more than 2,000 Court rulings and interviewing a fraction of those poor landlords, the time to finally get a sentence to “launch” (as Spanish law calls it) your hated tenant averages six months and fourteen days. The problem is that you then need to execute this ruling so that eventually the police can effective throw the bastard out and this will take another three months and sixteen days so you are looking at an average of ten months in all…but then again it takes another eight months and five days to make up you mind to go to Court (getting in touch with lawyers, arranging meetings, paying them extortionate fees…) so after you add up it will almost take two years from when the monthly rental fails to show up on your bank account to when you can visit your “investment” property again. Not to mention of course that you should not expect a bottle of champagne with a with thanks note in the living room but quite the contrary: stolen fixture and fittings, destroyed furniture, missing kitchen utensils, dog crap all over the place and to get even more scatological (and not joking here), walls and curtains smothered in human fecal matter. So who the hell would want to rent with this prospect??

According to this report, 50,5% of defaulters are males and 35,7% females, the rest being companies. By nationalities, 74 out of 100 are Spaniards and the rest Brits, Germans and Romanians, by this order.

This same law firm has privately compiled a database with 6,000 Court rulings where “non-complying” tenants are named (unfortunately not publicly shamed) and so for a modest amount of money (7.50 Euros) one can know if we are dealing with the right guy. Obviously not all bad payers are registered, but if they happened to be registered and to avoid 7.50 Euros we incurred in thousands in losses, one would not be happy at all. This database should be also by checked by a lanlord who has a defaulting tenant, for a tenant which has had two court cases for the same reason can be prosecuted for criminal swindle, as opposed to a regular eviction case.

Fortunately enough, the law of averages says that finding a defaulting tenant is not always going to happen, and so it is quite possible that you will be able to have a beer or two with your tenant at some point during your commercial relationship with him/her because he/she has decided to do what all landlords are praying for, i.e., just pay the rent.

With the new law hopefully the almost twelve months from filing to firing will be reduced to, say, three or four months, we can only hope!

It is not clear however how have they reached these conclusions but one thing is clear to me: I don’t know of anyone on the Costa del Sol (mostly foreigners) who has ever asked where should they pay their taxes.

The reasons, below:

1. Unwillingness to pay taxes (obvious).
2. Untraceability of the transaction as most of the deals are done in cash or are paid into non-resident bank accounts, of little interest to the Spanish Inland Revenue. Also, the sums are small and periodical so banks are not obliged to report back to the Central Bank of Spain.
3. Tenants are not obliged to withhold the tax and lodge with the Spanish Inland Revenue if the tenancy agreement is not of a commercial nature (Conversely, where a real estate agency is involved in the payments they will have to deduct the 24%).
4. Ignorance as to how to about paying the tax in the case of a non-resident.
5. In the event of willingness to pay, many non-resident owners are put off by the tax (24%), with no possibility to deduct costs (maintenance, etc.)
6. Lack of fear of the Spanish Inland Revenue.

But this blissful scenario is likely to change because the Spanish Inland Revenue is on a mission to trap tax dues with a clever and original proposal. They will force utility companies (water, electricity, gas) to supply details of consumption to identify the properties which are apparently empty but house a tenant in them.

This seems once again a futile attempt to convince owners that they need to pay taxes and judging by how it is released it looks more of a newsletter or circular carrying a declaration of intention, no more.