Antonio Flores’ Blog

I assume that as a reader of this blog you are aware of what is currently cooking in this part of Spain but if not there is a likely chance that you may have listened to some of the following news headlines in British, German, Dutch and Spanish TV and radio:

1. The Junta has earmarked about 10,000 properties for demolition
2. President Mugabe has defended the ongoing operation to bulldoze thousands of homes and businesses across Zimbabwe
3. Britons who face seeing their Spanish homes demolished are to be visited by Foreign Office minister Chris Bryant
4. Robert Mugabe’s Junta destroy thousands of properties in Harare
5. Hundreds of British expats stage march in Malaga over plans to demolish ‘illegal’ holiday homes

Hopefully you have spotted -minor- differences between the above news headlines: the even-numbered ones refer to an African third world country governed by a viciously corrupt megalomaniac and the rest to the second tourist destination in the world. On the other hand though there is a striking similarity between both Juntas: presumably they’ll use identical diggers and demolition techniques to smash the bricks and mortar of hundreds or, if the property-destroyer Andalusian Junta plans go ahead, thousands of houses.

Fortunately we do not live in Zimbabwe and fortunately as well Spain is now part of the EU because anyone caught out in the Spanish illegal property scandal, in particular in this part of Spain (Andalusia) is going to have necessarily (and thankfully) to bypass, within the statutory procedures, Spanish laws and tribunals because the Spanish Supreme Court, the ultimate ordinary judicial instance, is reiterative in its stance of considering that there are no bona fide buyers (good faith buyers) of properties built on illegal licenses or initially legal but rendered illegal through a subsequent Court case.

The Supreme Court has settled a long standing difference of opinion between Civil Courts and Administrative Courts (in  favour of the latter), which considered that bona fide buyers could not avoid the application of legal limitations concerning a property, including the issue of the validity of a building license, and thus any consequence arising from the fact of it being declared void, namely demolition. Conversely, the Civil Courts were more prone to uphold the principle of protection dispensed by the land registry rules to buyers who had trusted this system to acquire property.

This is explained fairly clearly by the Supreme Court in several rulings, establishing that property purchasers automatically take over the position of the previous buyer in respect of urban limitations, and, particularly, building licenses, irrespective of whether these were registered or not. In the view of a large part of the learnt Spanish population, and the majority of the foreign, this conclusion is unfair, as it does not differentiate between situations where the buyer could have known that the license was compromised and those where there was no indication at all that this was the case.

It will certainly sound as a precipitous opinion, but if I were sitting at the European Court of Justice, I would find myself very comfortable ruling against the Andalusian Government on the following grounds:

1. Town Halls in Spain have a legal entitlement to issue build licenses conferred upon by the Spanish Constitution. This statutory prerogative is relied on by citizens when engaging in real estate transactions and should not be open to revocation by higher instances.
2. Where Town Hall actions were blatantly illegal, the Junta should have acted efficiently imposing measure to impede developers from finalizing the works and also selling these properties.
3. By accepting either Transfer Tax (7%) or Stamp Duty (1%) on ALL transactions on properties which were later rendered illegal.
4. By creating an appearance of legality where everyone made the “imperfect” transaction good by charging build license tax, Notary and Land registry fees, Transfers Taxes, Mortgage arrangement costs, property valuation fees (in Spain valuations advise on the legal validity of a transaction on behalf of banks).

If I were the judge I’d pull a fantastic Common Law principle, known as the Doctrine of Estoppel, which says the following:

A person is precluded from denying or asserting anything to the contrary of that which has, in contemplation of law, been established as the truth, either by the acts of judicial or legislative officers, or by his own deed, acts, or representations, either express or implied.

This principle, properly applied by the European Court of Justice, should quash any Court demolition order and send the very clear message to the Andalusian Government that in Europe it is not acceptable to throw the lives of bona fide property purchasers into abject misery on the pretext of protection of public interest. Quite like Mugabe in Zimbabwe!

Antonio Flores Litigation, Property demolition orders spain, land registry in spain, spanish properties bulldozed

The more you read the more confusing it gets. It now appears that applying for land registry information via the website www.registradores.org is abusive, illegal and almost criminal. The AUDRP (Association for the Protection of Users of Public Registries) has now come up with a clear and undoubted conclusion: that Spanish land registries must not give information freely to anyone who wishes to obtain, for example, details of the owner of a property, how many charges it currently has or how many times it was bought and sold in the last few years.

According to this aatonishing finding, the Spanish Land Registries are providing information on properties and their legitimate owners without proving a “legitimate” interest, however vague this term may be. Certainly, when you apply for a “nota simple”, or a land registry certificate (an excerpt of the current status of a property) you are requested to provide a reason for which you want this nota simple. For example, if you want it because you want to sue someone´s ass off you will use an euphemism such as “legal action”, or if you wish to know if someone is in debt up to their eyeballs you will prefer to say that you will need it  to “ascertain the juridical conditions of the dwelling”. And if you have been conned by some cretin in your vicinity and he’s ran away with your money, you will have to say that you require this bit of information so as to know the economical-juridical situation of the house he bought with your money.

Whatever the reason you need this “nota simple” for, it is surely for one purpose: to know if someone owns something somewhere and if he/she does, in what legal state it is in. According to the AUDPR (until recently pretty quiet, but whose bosses now want to be seen as making some noise) giving out absolutely crucial information to ensure the safety of the Spanish property market, already under serious scrutiny, is a fraudulent money-making devious idea because it allows other people to scan the system for obscure purposes (they say) such as gossiping or pure morbid fascination…

The funny thing is that the Spanish Land Registry system, which was specifically designed to bring certainty and security to real estate transactions (or, in everyday language, to prevent con artists attracted by bricks and mortar from making a living), is being copied by other countries because of the protection and usefulness it brings to its users if it is properly implemented.

Now these guys from the AUDPR want to stop not only legitimate property buyers or curious would-be investors from knowing financial information on properties they are keen on, but also impede, inter alia, the Suffolk County Council, Essex County Council Trading Standards, Northumbria and West Yorkshire Police and many more law enforcement agencies in various counties (and countries) from obtaining crucial clues as to the final destination of the proceeds of diverse criminal activities. Soon after this they may want to go after Google for soaking up and divulging the names and addresses of people (and other circumstances) who are in one of the following unpleasant scenarios (details which are all legally accessible to anyone in Spain and beyond through the various Spanish Official Gazettes):

• Do not pay their Council taxes.
• Have missed social security payments.
• Do not pay road traffic fines.
• Become Spanish nationals.
• Apply for a business licenses.
• Have been convicted for fraud and swindle.
• Have been involved in a 3 am brawl in Torremolinos where the claimant, a Mr. Yossef Cheghanou, punched a Enrique Atencia Burgos because the latter said that Spaniards were all a bunch of pr*cks (in Spanish, “gilipollas”, actually I know quite a few!), for which he was reprimanded with a patriotic girly slap to which Mr. Cheghanou responded with an uppercut (good and proper!). This was the subject of an appeal at the Spanish equivalent to the Old Bailey (Tribunal Constitucional) believe it or not and we know all the details.

So now you draw your own conclusions as what information deserves to be hidden from “gossip land” and what is really important to the public, Mr. Cheghanou´s pugilist abilities or a heavily encumbered property?

I hope some bright civil servant will realize soon that the problem in Spain has not and will never be the Land Registry but the total inability to know, once and for all, if one can or cannot build a bloody house on a plot of land without having to later wonder if the planning permission was good enough, just about acceptable or bent as a nine bob note!

Antonio Flores Property land registry in spain, spanish data protection act, spanish land registry