# Mortgage expenses can now be reclaimed



## pedro6 (Aug 4, 2016)

I am not sure how many of you are aware that in December 2016 the Spanish Supreme Court (705/2015) decided that the Banks are responsible for paying mortgage expenses such as Notary, registration, Bank charges and in some case the Tax paid (although some Judges disagreed with repayment of the tax)
This could amount to a claim of3K to 7K on a 150K mortgage.
If you have a mortgage in Spain it is worth contacting your abogado to establish if and how much you can reclaim from your Bank.
Good luck.


----------



## Overandout (Nov 10, 2012)

I have been meaning to start a thread on this for a while, so thanks for doing this !!

One thing that may not be clear is that, in theory, you do not need a lawyer to make this claim. There are many standard letters available on internet and it is recommended that the first contact is made formally by presenting such a letter to the "atención al cliente" of the lender.

Here is a link to info and a "calculator" of what you may be able to claim. This is the "Organización de Consumidores y Usuarios" website.

Movilízate con OCU No a los gastos hipotecarios abusivos

You may have to subscribe to be able to use their help in the claim, but I guess it would be cheaper than a lawyer, and you also get their services for all other rip offs you may have encountered !!

I will be trying to claim for both of my mortgages (when I can get round to finding the paperwork!!)


----------



## pedro6 (Aug 4, 2016)

It is true you can claim without using a lawyer but the Bank will probably ignore you, the advantage of using a lawyer is that the Bank will take your claim seriously and in fact if you are successful the Bank will have to pay your lawyers costs which would be included in your claim.

The above is also the case with the interest floor clause which I suggest is also looked at in your mortgages when you make your claim.


----------



## Isobella (Oct 16, 2014)

pedro6 said:


> I am not sure how many of you are aware that in December 2016 the Spanish Supreme Court (705/2015) decided that the Banks are responsible for paying mortgage expenses such as Notary, registration, Bank charges and in some case the Tax paid (although some Judges disagreed with repayment of the tax)
> This could amount to a claim of3K to 7K on a 150K mortgage.
> If you have a mortgage in Spain it is worth contacting your abogado to establish if and how much you can reclaim from your Bank.
> Good luck.


Are you sure about that, not seen it anywhere. I thought it was just abusive clauses which caused borrowers to keep paying the same even though interest rates fell.

https://www.spanishpropertyinsight....dgates-claims-banks-abusive-mortgage-clauses/


----------



## Overandout (Nov 10, 2012)

Isobella said:


> Are you sure about that, not seen it anywhere. I thought it was just abusive clauses which caused borrowers to keep paying the same even though interest rates fell.
> 
> https://www.spanishpropertyinsight....dgates-claims-banks-abusive-mortgage-clauses/


Do a search for "reclamación de gasto de hipoteca" in Google and you will find a lot of news about this.

It is quite separate from the "clausula suelo" issue.


----------



## Overandout (Nov 10, 2012)

pedro6 said:


> It is true you can claim without using a lawyer but the Bank will probably ignore you, the advantage of using a lawyer is that the Bank will take your claim seriously and in fact if you are successful the Bank will have to pay your lawyers costs which would be included in your claim.
> 
> The above is also the case with the interest floor clause which I suggest is also looked at in your mortgages when you make your claim.


Please be careful what you advise. Without going through a judicial proceeding the bank WILL NOT reimburse any legal costs. It is never advisable to go directly into litigation without trying to resolve the issue amicably.

Consumers are advised to write their own letters (using the models being provided free by many lawyers and consumer organisations) and only recurring to professional legal services if the answer from the bank is negative.

Please also be aware that this is a relatively new jurisprudence in Spain and there is still quite a disparity of verdicts coming from the sentences. As is correctly stated, some judges award the costs of tax paid on the registering of the mortgage, others don't. Also come judges are saying that the bank should pay all the registry and notary costs, others are saying that it should be a shared cost.

In time it may become clear exactly what costs are generally refunded to the consumers, but until then it is a bit of a lottery.

I will let you know how my claims go. I will not be using a lawyer in the first instance, I will be writing directly to my lending banks.


----------



## pedro6 (Aug 4, 2016)

I agree normally costs are only awarded to the successful party following proceedings but I suspect a number of lawyers will start offering no win no fee service as per the floor clause.
I also believe that the only matter that is in dispute with regard to the judiciary is the tax aspect (form 600).
I am not advising anyone to issue proceedings but for the sake of the cost of a letter from an abogado I think in the long run it is worth that route but I wish you luck.


----------



## Overandout (Nov 10, 2012)

pedro6 said:


> I also believe that the only matter that is in dispute with regard to the judiciary is the tax aspect (form 600).


Just a quick disclaimer!! I am not a qualified lawyer, but I am working in a legal role in a Spanish company so I am quite familiar with Spanish legal issues.

You are right that the main difference of opinion is that on the tax. This is because the tax is a derived obligation coming from the registration of the mortgage with the Registro. In this case it is very clear that if the mortgage is registered with the Registro, the person liable for the tax is the borrower.

However, this entire situation has arisen because the Supreme Court has decided that the registering of the mortgage in the Registro is a benefit (almost exclusively) for the lender, therefore it is the lender who should pay the associated costs. Remember that it is not obligatory to register the mortgage with the Registro in Spain (it is only obligatory to register the property purchase if done with a mortgage).

So, on one hand, the judges are saying that the party that benefits is the lender, so the lender should pay the costs.

On the other hand some judges are saying that both parties benefit so the cost should be shared.

Then you have the tax issue, which some say the person who benefits (and pays the costs) should also pay, but others say that the tax obligation is clear and is not changed by the arguments of who benefits from the registration!!

By the way, I am not thinking that you (OP) do not know all this already, it is just for those who may not have read so much about this.


----------



## pedro6 (Aug 4, 2016)

If anyone intends to pursue this matter you will need the following:

a copy of the mortgage deed

a copy of the invoices paid for the MORTGAGE to the Notary, Land Registry and for registration.

a copy of the AJD tax paid (form 600)

a copy of the invoice showing the amount paid to the Bank Agency to manage the registration process of the mortgage.

In addition you will need a copy of all interest payment made to the Banks since inception of the mortgage with the rate of interest charged by the Bank if you wish to include a claim for the floor clause.

You should have all the above with the exception of the floor clause info. (interest payments and rates)

If you do not have a particular document the Bank has an OBLIGATION to provide them to you.

The above will help your Abogado if you choose this route or you will need them in any event if you pursue your own claim to calculate the amount you are entitled to.

Good luck.


----------



## Isobella (Oct 16, 2014)

Just got round to reading last weeks Sunday Times property supplement. There is a lengthy article about this and also abusive clauses. They state that Judges are viewing it differently. Gives the name of a Lawyer who is taking group action. Cost is 120€ plus 20% of compensation, bit steep! Article says average compensation is about €11,000 for thos caught up in abusive interest rates.


----------



## pedro6 (Aug 4, 2016)

Just a quick update, I understand that even if your Spanish mortgage has been repaid (sale of the property or cash) you can still claim for your mortgage expenses and if your mortgage contained the floor clause (clausula suelo) you can additionally claim for this.


----------



## Alcalaina (Aug 6, 2010)

A friend who has a mortgage here has already had cold-callers offering to reclaim these expenses on a no-win-no-fee basis.

But as I understand it the banks have to contact their customers in the next three months, no need for borrowers to take action at this stage?

Spain passes law to help clients claim back abusive mortgages from banks - The Local


----------



## pedro6 (Aug 4, 2016)

Yes I noticed that but my thread is essentially about reclaiming the expenses of setting the mortgage up rather that the abusive interest rate clause.

I don't think the banks will deal with the set up costs as part of the abusive interest rate clause or indeed cases where the mortgage has been repaid and is off their books but I may be wrong.

My reference to claiming for the abusive interest rate clause was an add on to the expenses and in particular for those that have repaid there mortgage as they may not be aware of there right to claim.


----------



## xgarb (May 6, 2011)

Does this not apply to new mortgages? 

Bankia's 'Quitamos las comisiones' still has the massive charges... (40,000€ mortgage)









Also, not sure why a notario needs €1,700 euros to look over paperwork for a 50,000€ house.


----------



## pedro6 (Aug 4, 2016)

I would speak to the bank and ask for an explanation quoting the Spanish Supreme Court ruling (705/2015) and see what they say. Surely the ruling must apply to new mortgages.


----------



## pedro6 (Aug 4, 2016)

this is quite useful https://www.eyeonspain.com/blogs/sp...aim-spanish-mortgage-expenses-from-banks.aspx


----------



## pedro6 (Aug 4, 2016)

If you intend to pursue the floor clause or recovery of set up expenses this might be of interest as it shows that there are dangers in pursuing theses claim as an individual.
Mortgage floor rate calculation and bank offers


----------



## pedro6 (Aug 4, 2016)

xgarb said:


> Does this not apply to new mortgages?
> 
> Bankia's 'Quitamos las comisiones' still has the massive charges... (40,000€ mortgage)
> 
> ...


This may be of interest https://www.bankia.com/en/communica...ses/bankia-launches-the-no-fees-mortgage.html


----------



## Overandout (Nov 10, 2012)

I finally got round to sending off my claim letters to my mortage providers yesterday!

Latest news that I have read is that the banks are very worried about the set up cost claims being another "floor clause" type of issue and in many cases are refusing to attend to the individual claims to Customer Services. Their argument is that, unlike the "floor clause" judgement, the mortgage costs judgement is for a specific case and does not apply to all mortgage contracts (they have to say this because the cost of giving the rebate to all affected consumers is in the billions) so I don't expect to get anywhere with this in the short term.

However it is a necessary step. I have heard of a case where the consumer went straight to court and won. But the bank argued that if the plaintiff had approached them out of court, they would have paid, so the judge awarded him the rebate, then made him pay for the legal and court costs!!

So, lesson here at the moment is: present the claim to the bank. Wait for a few months (they will probably not reply), than get a lawyer and go to court.

This is my plan. I will keep you all informed!


----------



## pedro6 (Aug 4, 2016)

I made a claim for the floor clause and expenses last year (before the royal decree) to BBVA and it was rejected.
I have instructed my abogado and we are awaiting the response from the bank.
If you do not use the government procedure and go straight to court you will loose the costs.
I also understand that BBVA are rejecting claims for expenses for mortgages more than 15 years old even if they are still being paid as they consider that they are statute barred after this period.


----------



## snikpoh (Nov 19, 2007)

Overandout said:


> I finally got round to sending off my claim letters to my mortage providers yesterday!
> 
> Latest news that I have read is that the banks are very worried about the set up cost claims being another "floor clause" type of issue and in many cases are refusing to attend to the individual claims to Customer Services. Their argument is that, unlike the "floor clause" judgement, the mortgage costs judgement is for a specific case and does not apply to all mortgage contracts (they have to say this because the cost of giving the rebate to all affected consumers is in the billions) so I don't expect to get anywhere with this in the short term.
> 
> ...


Can you give a link to the letter template you used or could you PM me a suitably doctored copy of your letter?

Thanks.


----------



## pedro6 (Aug 4, 2016)

I cannot give you a copy of my letter as my abogado has all my papers but their are templates available on line free. for example Mortgage Floor Clause? Arrangement Fee? Make a Claim! - Money Saver Spain this site has one
/SNIP/
Good luck.


----------



## pedro6 (Aug 4, 2016)

quick update on my claim, coincidentally I received an email from my abogado saying that BBVA have denied my claim as I was not a consumer as the mortgage was commercial.
Whilst I retired at 44 in 1998 I have not worked or run any business and the mortgage was on my habitual residence not commercial premises and in a small village with no shops etc., it seems the bank are trying any tactic to put people off.
I am now issuing court proceedings and will keep you up dated.


----------



## Overandout (Nov 10, 2012)

pedro6 said:


> quick update on my claim, coincidentally I received an email from my abogado saying that BBVA have denied my claim as I was not a consumer as the mortgage was commercial.
> Whilst I retired at 44 in 1998 I have not worked or run any business and the mortgage was on my habitual residence not commercial premises and in a small village with no shops etc., it seems the bank are trying any tactic to put people off.
> I am now issuing court proceedings and will keep you up dated.


I have heard of this "standard" response before. You are doing the right thing and their erroneous response should help your case. If that is the only defense they present and it is inaccurate you should be on a winner!

Just for interest, how long did they take to respond?


----------



## pedro6 (Aug 4, 2016)

about 1 month


----------



## pedro6 (Aug 4, 2016)

Many mortgage holders, once aware of the clause have spoken with the directors at their branch asking for the clause to be removed and secondly, to have the extra payments they had made monthly over many years refunded. Most banks will give many reasons why they will not comply and why you are not entitled to claim. With cases being won against the banks all over Spain, you would wonder as to why the banks do not oblige to the requests made by their clients. The answer is quite simple. With the substantial amounts the banks will have to repay, it is beneficial for them to play a waiting game. Out of twenty mortgage holders who complain only one will embark on litigation. Perfect for the banks, they will only have the expense from the claim from one client out of twenty. Take into consideration that since the news of the clausula suelo started to circulate, only 5% of mortgage holders with this clause have made a legal claim against their banks.

Don't give up.


----------



## Overandout (Nov 10, 2012)

Interesting article in Cinco Días about the varied "excuses" that banks are giving to customers regarding why the costs will not be reimbursed....

Respuestas de la banca al reclamar gastos hipotecarios: â€œexpulsar la clÃ¡usula no implica reembolsoâ€� | Mi dinero | Cinco DÃ­as

In my case, one bank has replied to me with a holding letter pending investigation of the demand, the other is yet to respond.


----------



## mrypg9 (Apr 26, 2008)

We made a clausa suelo claim, the bank made an offer, on lawyer's advice we rejected it, now awaiting further developments. 
We were told to expect reimbursement of around 19k euros inclusive, the bank's offer was derisory.


----------



## xgarb (May 6, 2011)

mrypg9 said:


> We made a clausa suelo claim, the bank made an offer, on lawyer's advice we rejected it, now awaiting further developments.
> We were told to expect reimbursement of around 19k euros inclusive, the bank's offer was derisory.


Not to be nosey but I thought you were renting?


----------



## Isobella (Oct 16, 2014)

Not followed the Spain mortgage scandal closely, was it extortionate interest rates? Are there no win no fee Lawyers like the UK. If so beware as many in UK were ripped off with these ambulance chasers.

I did read from the link above that going to court could be costly. A German friend was asked for €5000 upfront just for opening litigation in Spain, finally was charged €10000 plus costs when they lost.


----------



## mrypg9 (Apr 26, 2008)

xgarb said:


> Not to be nosey but I thought you were renting?


Just seen this, sorry for late reply...
Yes, we rent although we have family property here, all bought outright so no mortgage problem, thankfully..
The property we're claiming on belongs to the charity I work for.


----------



## xgarb (May 6, 2011)

Anybody any success on refunding of the mortgage setup charges?

I've been looking at mortgages again recently and they all had the bank's costs as being payable by the buyer. Some were more reasonable than before but others were high still.

I saw this: https://www.fotocasa.es/blog/hipotecas-finanzas/nueva-ley-hipotecaria-todas-las-claves

_Quién paga los gastos
La ley no se inmiscuye y los gastos serán pactados entre el banco y el cliente. Eso sí, debe quedar reflejado en el contrato quién paga cada gasto._

So the law is changing but the banks can still charge for their costs but you can negotiate (I'm sure the negotiation will consist of don't pay costs, don't get mortgage)

I reckon the banks have writhed around on the floor, feigning death by poison to avoid the law being written to make them pay their own expenses.


----------



## Overandout (Nov 10, 2012)

xgarb said:


> Anybody any success on refunding of the mortgage setup charges?
> 
> I've been looking at mortgages again recently and they all had the bank's costs as being payable by the buyer. Some were more reasonable than before but others were high still.
> 
> ...


No, I claimed from both my mortgaging banks and both turned down my claims.

Recent case law has gone againts the initial decision which gave the mortgagee a refund of the fees AND the tax on the Registro. So now you can only expect the fees to be refunded if you win. In my cases, the tax (which is not being refunded to the mortgagee under recent cases) represents about 70% of the costs I would claim, so although I may still stand to gain by going the next step (to court) it is not the thousands of Euros the first landmark case suggested, so I am in no hurry to proceed as I already have one law suit ongoing and want to see it out before I start another.


----------



## Overandout (Nov 10, 2012)

More case law / jurisprudence has been set today by the Tribunal Supremo in a ruling which sides with the banks' view that it has always been legal to pass the costs of mortgage establishment and tax on the land registry to the mortgagee.

Not good news for those of us who though we might get a few Euros back....

https://www.elconfidencial.com/vivi...-impuesto-actos-juridicos-documentos_1528694/

I will not be pursuing my claims any further based on today's ruling.


----------



## Overandout (Nov 10, 2012)

Potential good news!!

New case law has been set by the Supreme Court on 16th October which once again turns the previous case law on its head.

In the new sentence the panel of judges have decided (much like in the original case which gave us all the hope of a valid claim) that it is the bank who most benefits from the inscription of the mortgage deeds in the Registro. And so they are the beneficiary as per the law on tax contributions.

Previous case law had always interpreted the "beneficiary" to be the borrower.

I will be dusting off my claim files....

EDIT to add link:

https://okdiario.com/economia/vivie...-que-deben-abonar-impuestos-hipotecas-3245415


----------



## xgarb (May 6, 2011)

Was always a mystery to me why I had to pay the banks own expenses in setting up a contract between us.

They'll probably do some furious funny handshakes to change it back or just add mystery costs like they did last time this happened and everyone I know had weird charges on their accounts that not even the branch new what they were for.

Another article: https://okdiario.com/economia/2018/...illones-personas-podrian-beneficiarse-3246468


----------



## Overandout (Nov 10, 2012)

xgarb said:


> Was always a mystery to me why I had to pay the banks own expenses in setting up a contract between us.
> 
> They'll probably do some furious funny handshakes to change it back or just add mystery costs like they did last time this happened and everyone I know had weird charges on their accounts that not even the branch new what they were for.
> 
> Another article: https://okdiario.com/economia/2018/...illones-personas-podrian-beneficiarse-3246468


Interesting.

I don't think the argument about it being only retrospectively applicable for 4 years is a valid one. 
It may be true that 4 years is the time limit to modify a contribution as far as Hacienda is concerned, but in these cases, Hacienda already has the money (the customer's money) and the fact that the customer paid it is due to an incorrect interpretation of a law when decreeing the enacting regulation. I don't think that these two issues should be linked.
In any case, even if the time bar for retrospective application of the sentence is 4 years, I still stand to (partially) benefit, so I will give it some time for the dust to settle and then fire off a few new letters or responses to the rejections previously received.


----------



## Overandout (Nov 10, 2012)

As more legal opinions are published, it seem clear that most lawyers and judges agree on two things:

1) There is no prescription period for the right to claim, i.e. all affected people should be able to get their money back.

2) People who paid the tax on the registry of the mortgage deed in the last 4 fiscal years can claim either to to the bank, or to their local delegation of hacienda.

What I find difficult to believe is that hacienda will return the money paid by the mortgagee, plus interests, without first having got the respective contribution from the bank...

Given that there has never been any doubt about the banks' obligations to return the other constitution costs (Notario etc) and I never got that either from my mortgaging banks, I will probably present another full claim including the tax to the banks, regardless of the fact that I could, in theory claim some of it from Hacienda.


----------



## Overandout (Nov 10, 2012)

Ah no. Wait. Sorry. 

Someone had a word with the Supreme Court about how much this was going to cost the banks and surprise surprise, they've changed their mind...

Got to love this country...


----------



## Overandout (Nov 10, 2012)

Anyone else who, like me, is dumbfounded at how the Supreme Court of Spain can change a judicial sentence (or rather suspend the effects of its jurisprudence) under blackmail from the major banks, can sign a petition on change.org here:

https://www.change.org/p/luis-maría...puesto-sobre-actos-jurídicos-en-las-hipotecas

50,000 people have signed in in the last two hours...


----------



## xgarb (May 6, 2011)

I thought this might happen.. lots of 'funny handshakes' behind the scenes to keep golfing buddys' bonuses intact.

It's so obvious that the banks are talking the pee with charging a client the banks expenses. Maybe they thought they were untouchable as they are still wobbly and no-one wants to rock a wobbly boat.


----------



## Overandout (Nov 10, 2012)

xgarb said:


> I thought this might happen.. lots of 'funny handshakes' behind the scenes to keep golfing buddys' bonuses intact.
> 
> It's so obvious that the banks are talking the pee with charging a client the banks expenses. Maybe they thought they were untouchable as they are still wobbly and no-one wants to rock a wobbly boat.


What shocks me (although it shouldn't) is the blatant openness with which the banks blackmailed the whole country.

Within hours of the sentence being published most of the major banks ceased signing mortgage agreements, even for customers that had already made appointments over these few days to sign.

There are stories of people who would signed private waivers of their legal rights just so that they could get the bank to concede the mortgage.

OF course, the banks didn't openly say that they would remove this restriction if the Supreme Court paralyzed the jurisprudence, but you don't have to be Einstein to work it out...


----------



## Pesky Wesky (May 10, 2009)

The ruling is in - the client pays the tax, not the bank
*El Tribunal Supremo da la razón a los bancos y falla que el cliente pague el impuesto de las hipotecas*




https://www.elmundo.es/economia/macroeconomia/2018/11/06/5be1e1eae5fdeade218b45e2.html


----------



## Pesky Wesky (May 10, 2009)

In English
https://elpais.com/elpais/2018/10/19/inenglish/1539934083_640894.html
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...arts-as-spain-banks-win-mortgage-tax-reprieve


----------



## Overandout (Nov 10, 2012)

Surprised?

Next stop ECJ.


----------



## xgarb (May 6, 2011)

I don't really have a problem with the 1.5% tax as I always assumed this was meant for the client to pay along with the ~8% tax on the property price.

The thing that annoys me is that for a small mortgage of say €40k the charges are way above the actual cost of the service and of course the bank should be paying their own costs.

One example I have is

400€ to look at the house (1 hour work for someone from the bank)
935€ Notario (who I'm already paying for my side)
433€ Registro (bet it doesn't really cost this)
€465 Lawyer (this is their in-house lawyer who is probably a para-legal working for €10 a hour)
€966 AJD (Tax.. don't have a problem with this)

I wonder how much of this is the banks trying to recover their balance sheets and how much is marketing. A lot of them have publicity saying base rate + 0.9%. Maybe if it had 1.1% in the window people wouldn't come in.

Personally I think it's just to grab as much money as quickly as possible.


----------



## xgarb (May 6, 2011)

Bancos...


----------



## Williams2 (Sep 15, 2013)

Pesky Wesky said:


> In English
> https://elpais.com/elpais/2018/10/19/inenglish/1539934083_640894.html
> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...arts-as-spain-banks-win-mortgage-tax-reprieve


No doubt this will open the floodgates to what the Banks have been experiencing over PPI Claims in the UK.
Hope these Spanish banks have enough money in reserve, to weather these claims and I wonder
( like the FSA have set an August 2019 deadline for UK customers to make their final PPI claims ) whether
Spain will set a cut off date as well ?
I assume the Spanish equivalent of the FSA will be policing this matter ?


----------



## Pesky Wesky (May 10, 2009)

Williams2 said:


> No doubt this will open the floodgates to what the Banks have been experiencing over PPI Claims in the UK.
> Hope these Spanish banks have enough money in reserve, to weather these claims and I wonder
> ( like the FSA have set an August 2019 deadline for UK customers to make their final PPI claims ) whether
> Spain will set a cut off date as well ?
> I assume the Spanish equivalent of the FSA will be policing this matter ?


It's not happening. That's the news. No claims can be made.


----------



## Williams2 (Sep 15, 2013)

Pesky Wesky said:


> It's not happening. That's the news. No claims can be made.


Can not be made yet or at the moment - until the final, final judgement.

Like the early days of the PPI - probably just a question of when, not if ?

Chances are there will be an appeal and it will go to a higher court like the ECJ.


----------



## Pesky Wesky (May 10, 2009)

Crazy! The government is going to push through a " Real Decreto" going against the Supreme Court's ruling saying that the banks will have to pay!


----------



## Overandout (Nov 10, 2012)

Pesky Wesky said:


> Crazy! The government is going to push through a " Real Decreto" going against the Supreme Court's ruling saying that the banks will have to pay!


Well, the TS only applies the laws, they don't make them.

In any case, as soon as PP/ Vox / Ciudadanos get into power this proposed RD will be repealed / stopped.


----------



## Pesky Wesky (May 10, 2009)

OverandoAut said:


> Well, the TS only applies the laws, they don't make them.
> 
> In any case, as soon as PP/ Vox / Ciudadanos get into power this proposed RD will be repealed / stopped.


Actually, according to the radio the PP want to abolish the tax altogether! This is really quite big news as the government and the TS usually work together. Of course


----------



## Overandout (Nov 10, 2012)

Pesky Wesky said:


> Actually, according to the radio the PP want to abolish the tax altogether! This is really quite big news as the government and the TS usually work together. Of course


Wow!! The PP talking sense? What is the world coming to?


----------



## xgarb (May 6, 2011)

Overandout said:


> Wow!! The PP talking sense? What is the world coming to?


Because they know they are going to get stuffed in the next election and are desperate to look like 'good guys'.


----------



## xgarb (May 6, 2011)

Pesky Wesky said:


> Crazy! The government is going to push through a " Real Decreto" going against the Supreme Court's ruling saying that the banks will have to pay!


Some of this might be that they don't want yet another embarrasing ruling from the European courts that makes the Spanish government or judicial system look corrupt.


----------



## Si Tie (Nov 12, 2018)

First post on here (so go easy). Apologise for asking before contributing Got a bit confusing reading this pthread as it seemed to cover two issues (obviously linked). 
Has anyone ever got anything back for thee "Floor clause mortgage"?
Is it worth per suing a claim?
Has anyone been successful with claiming backset up fee's
Same question worth per suing?

thanks


----------



## xgarb (May 6, 2011)

Changing again at the end of May - https://www.fotocasa.es/blog/general/asi-es-la-nueva-ley-hipotecaria-principales-cambios/

Don't see anything about previous mortgages.


----------



## Overandout (Nov 10, 2012)

Holy thread revival Batman!

Here comes this issue again, but this time it is another potential good news for the consumer.

A sentence by the high court yesterday gave a verdict expressly on the economic effect of the previous rulings on mortgages constituted before the change in law commented above.

This means that (in theory) we can all now claim again (if we didn't get anything last time round as was my case) using this new jurisprudence as the legal basis.

No doubt the law firms and consumer bodies will jump on this to create standard letters etc. but also the banks will be digging their heels and refusing to pay / looking for further loop holes as to why it won't apply to you! (and me!)

Watch this space!


----------



## Overandout (Nov 10, 2012)

I can't find an English language source for the news but this is all over the Spanish press.

One of the easier to read / translate articles:



https://www.idealista.com/news/finanzas/hipotecas/2021/01/28/788859-el-supremo-dictamina-que-el-gasto-de-la-tasacion-de-la-casa-debe-pagarlo-el-banco


----------

