View Full Version : The Tenerife illegal lettings thread
11 o clock on a Saturday night.......................................can you tell whose got kids or not:lol::lol:..............................Just going back to the original post.for this forum its May 2011,,but if I,m right on the old one its Nov 2010.has any owner actualy paid any money over to the powers that be.
And I would have been wise to have already been in bed, up 12 times in the night with baby!
So Nelson - 22,000 down to 15,000 on appeal. Thats very good, any further info on this? Any reasons for
The reduction given???
reduced because first offence
Are you appealing again or just gonna pay that?
Peterrayner
22-01-2012, 20:55
Are you appealing again or just gonna pay that?
daft question really :wink:
Tenerife Villas
22-01-2012, 21:13
I agree with Peterrayner no body in there right mind is'nt going to appeal these sanctions and I doubt many people will pay them things might be hard for the goverment but it's hard times for most owners. It has gone ouite from the Cabildo de Tenerife and I know that certain major operators are publishing again on the internet, As for the exploitaion agents i think they are history as the Cabildo de Tenerife will have to take up the model in Portugil.
Which certain major operators are publishing again?
Not sure it's a silly question for Nelson , his lawyers may have advised him to pay at this stage - worth asking
Tenerife Villas
22-01-2012, 22:22
the operators publishing again are
http://www.jamesvillas.co.uk/search?depart=17%2F08%2F2012&nights=7&adults=1&children=0&infants=0&airport=1®ion=2
and http://www.tenerife-hols.co.uk/ and http://www.pureholidayhomes.com/search/DateFrom=24-02-2012|DateTo=02-03-2012|PricePer=week|Country=Canary_Islands|SortBy=N ewest|Area=1959|Dates=7|RefinedSearch=Yes/
These companies normaly agree a long term rental with the ownwers my mate has a villa in callio used on james villas his contract manager at james has told him that there will be amendments from the turismo shortly and he is at no risk of being denounced it makes me wonder why we have not heard anything since 14th dec.
I have noticed a few questions asked on this thread are regularly ignored, ie post number 2749 by poster tenerifevillas so i will ask it and see if anyone knows the answer, James Villa's website are still advertising Tenerife Villa's to rent,Are the Villa's privately owned or do they belong to the company??? And are they being naive or are they exempt from this crazy unworkable law??? Its baffled me for a while???
Hmm I'd wait for the change to happen. One of those villas is at the end of my street - a community of residential villas!
Hmmmmmm there may be trouble ahead.....
I have noticed a few questions asked on this thread are regularly ignored, ie post number 2749 by poster tenerifevillas so i will ask it and see if anyone knows the answer, James Villa's website are still advertising Tenerife Villa's to rent,Are the Villa's privately owned or do they belong to the company??? And are they being naive or are they exempt from this crazy unworkable law??? Its baffled me for a while???
James villas are doing nothing wrong by advertising these privately owned villas,its the owners (many of whom have been fined )who are taking the risk and a hugh risk in my opinion AL JAY
Thanks for the prompt reply but im still in the dark, Someone must know surely? Are they on the bulletins??? If not it could sink this law for good, And i think laws are there to be broken ;)
Added after 3 minutes:
James villas are doing nothing wrong by advertising these privately owned villas,its the owners (many of whom have been fined )who are taking the risk and a hugh risk in my opinion AL JAY
Thanks Chris, Im a bit clearer now!
James Villas don't usually own the villas - it's possible of
Course that they have made purchases in some places of course - they contract privately owned villas and advertise them.
There's nothing illegal about that as far as James are Concerned , so long as they have their agency license in their own country they should be ok. The individual owners will still be at risk in the canaries as things stand.
Looking at the villas advertised in Tenerife on James villas I do not think they can just say "things will change shortly" - as we know There are two types of "villa" in tenerife:
1. A villa that is independent of a community.
2. A villa that is part of a community
Now I don't think you'll find any sane person arguing against the possibility of someone registering a villa that is independent of other neighboring villas - so if the moratorium is lifted then these villas will be allowed to register and I would say that's fair enough.
But!
Villas that are part of a community such as Casa Sofia on Los Girasoles on James villas would need to rely on a change in two laws: the lifting of the moratorium and the scrapping of the need for 100% of a community to be registered (100% because no existing license) .
I don't see how anyone from James Villas can confidently predict this all happening in the near future.
Tenerife Villas
22-01-2012, 23:03
but james villas pay up front to the owner for an anule agreement and the owners give up there right to use them when they want this trhead from a villa owners site will explain more, but I cannot see james or any one paying up front and risking cancelled bookings http://www.laymyhat.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=14544&sid=dd19e8b243669215b90c9877176eb4a4
There are 38 villas being advertised by James villas but the responsibility lies with the owner every single one of them could receive a fine but i know for a fact none of
the fines ive seen so far have been through advertising on their site,its Owners Direct and Holiday lettings
Santiago
22-01-2012, 23:06
Hey, Loaded. Apropos the discussion about illegal advertising what is your opinion of this?
2 bedroom apartment for sale on the ever popular holiday complex of Parque Santiago I in Playa de las Americas. The apartment is spacious, comes furnished, fully fitted kitchen and a good sized terrace. The apartment is rented out most of the year and generates a good rental income. The complex is located next to the sea front, has a beautiful swimming pool and is near to all amenities.
Hey, Loaded. Apropos the discussion about illegal advertising what is your opinion of this?
2 bedroom apartment for sale on the ever popular holiday complex of Parque Santiago I in Playa de las Americas. The apartment is spacious, comes furnished, fully fitted kitchen and a good sized terrace. The apartment is rented out most of the year and generates a good rental income. The complex is located next to the sea front, has a beautiful swimming pool and is near to all amenities.
Sounds great!
Is it registered with onsite company? Is there an onsite company with 50%+1?
Tenerife Villas
22-01-2012, 23:13
There are 38 villas being advertised by James villas but the responsibility lies with the owner every single one of them could receive a fine but i know for a fact none of
the fines ive seen so far have been through advertising on their site,its Owners Direct and Holiday lettings
I agree with you but this is surly a massive task to deal with every site advertising properties. There choice of holiday rentals, owners direct and holiday lettings are just the tip of the iceberg and most of the advertisers are only renting to cover community fee.s where i live a lot of these so called illegal renters are skint and can only pay communidad with renting.
Santiago
22-01-2012, 23:17
Sounds great!
Is it registered with onsite company? Is there an onsite company with 50%+1?
I don't know, but I have been told by Tom and Sharon that PS1 is residential - so how can the estate agents advertise holiday lets?
I agree with you but this is surly a massive task to deal with every site advertising properties. There choice of holiday rentals, owners direct and holiday lettings are just the tip of the iceberg and most of the advertisers are only renting to cover community fee.s where i live a lot of these so called illegal renters are skint and can only pay communidad with renting.
I totally agree, why the tourist board cant have all Villa owners who want to rent pay a fee for an inspection and allow them a permit to rent is beyond me, ALL the owners of
villas i know of would be happy to pay a yearly fee for registration as long as they can legally rent out their properties,personally i think the situation the villa owners are in stinks,no way round it,the apartments DO have a way round this crazy situation
Hang on if they're paying community fees then they're part of a community! What about the residents? I just moved to a residential community to
Get
Away from holiday makers! Now i find someone is renting a house 6 doors away that could quite easily have been my next door Neighbour!
And the community fees are 50 per month so why can't they long let it to
Cover this small
Cost rather than charging 800-1400 per week ???????
Added after 4 minutes:
I don't know, but I have been told by Tom and Sharon that PS1 is residential - so how can the estate agents advertise holiday lets?
I think its better referred to as dormant-touristic. Ie it had a license once and could
Regain one if it had 50%+1 - so for
Now it's residential by default but it could in theory regain it's tourist license.
Although from recent experience you've got More chance of getting pigs to fly than 50%+1 of a complexes owners to admit theyre letting and need to club together for their own good !
cainaries
22-01-2012, 23:40
but james villas pay up front to the owner for an anule agreement and the owners give up there right to use them when they want this trhead from a villa owners site will explain more, but I cannot see james or any one paying up front and risking cancelled bookings http://www.laymyhat.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=14544&sid=dd19e8b243669215b90c9877176eb4a4
I think I must be missing something here. Are you saying that a company which advertises stand-alone villas which don't have licences to rent are fine but the only problem lies with the villa owners? As in .. the company advertising the villas knows what the owners are doing is illegal but this doesn't make them complicit?
I am referring in particular to stand-alone, older style properties in their own grounds - not 'complexes' in any sense at all.
Its no different to what the tourist board said when they issued our licence to advertise " put you website back on and advertise the villas" bloody joke when these very villas are getting fined,like i said the advertisers have a licence to advertise,the owners dont have a licence to rent,so who gets fined...............????????
cainaries
22-01-2012, 23:52
Its no different to what the tourist board said when they issued our licence to advertise " put you website back on and advertise the villas" bloody joke when these very villas are getting fined,like i said the advertisers have a licence to advertise,the owners dont have a licence to rent,so who gets fined...............????????
Thanks, sunspot. So now it's legal to advertise illegal lettings?! I think I'll just have an aspirin or a barraquito and lie down. I do see your point that your company got targeted but that wasn't because the villas didn't have licences ... I think I'll just give up trying to understand this logic now.
Thanks, sunspot. So now it's legal to advertise illegal lettings?! I think I'll just have an aspirin or a barraquito and lie down. I do see your point that your company got targeted but that wasn't because the villas didn't have licences ... I think I'll just give up trying to understand this logic now.
I wish i could have a Barraquito with you Cainaries, doing my head in too
cainaries
23-01-2012, 00:02
I wish i could have a Barraquito with you Cainaries, doing my head in too
I'm off to make us both a barraquito right now.
AlJay - you are welcome to join us.
:D
Oooooh im quite partial to a Barraquito or 2 ... TAXI :director: *Step on the gas driver :D
Peterrayner
23-01-2012, 03:17
Not sure it's a silly question for Nelson , his lawyers may have advised him to pay at this stage - worth asking
Yes worth asking :)
Nelson can answer for himself but owners on our complex have been advised not to accept the inital offer and to continue the appeals which he says have strong case against the Tourismo actions.
Added after 8 minutes:
Yes worth asking :)
Nelson can answer for himself but owners on our complex have been advised not to accept the inital offer and to continue the appeals which he says have strong case against the Tourismo actions.
Just to add regards to the 7400 issued. Most of the notifications sent contain at least 3 fines per owner
1. Advertising
2.Operating without a complaints book
3. Not dispalying a notice that a complaints book is available.
Soi I suspect the 7400 fines represents a total of less than 2000 private owners with a smaller balance of fines issued to companies and agencies.
and that total is for all islands so I estimate slightly less than 1000 private owners on Tenerife.
Added after 5 minutes:
Just to add again the lawyer is NOT charging any additional fee to continue the appeal so its a no brainer really. :)
Going back to the villa question, I have heard that some agents are having their owners sign a long term rental agreement with them for 6 or 12 months and saying that will make them legal.
Cant see it myself, the villas are still on the internet with weekly rental prices and they still dont have the complaints books etc etc so surely they can still be fined.
Exactly, that's not legal
Tom & Sharon
23-01-2012, 10:34
I don't know, but I have been told by Tom and Sharon that PS1 is residential - so how can the estate agents advertise holiday lets?
Don't drag me into this,i'm resting :D ;)
Yes worth asking :)
3. Not displaying a notice that a complaints book is available.
Might be worth sticking a sign up then if you have an illegal rental :)
At least you´ll dodge one of these fines... How do they know there isnt a sign if they haven't been inside??!
Going back to the villa question, I have heard that some agents are having their owners sign a long term rental agreement with them for 6 or 12 months and saying that will make them legal.
Cant see it myself, the villas are still on the internet with weekly rental prices and they still dont have the complaints books etc etc so surely they can still be fined.
So what if you rent your apartment out to an agent (or anyone else) who then sub lets it without your knowledge? Are you then to be hauled over the coals and fined 18,000€?
Don't drag me into this,i'm resting :D ;)
Get better soon!
Might be worth sticking a sign up then if you have an illegal rental :)
At least you´ll dodge one of these fines... How do they know there isnt a sign if they haven't been inside??!
So what if you rent your apartment out to an agent (or anyone else) who then sub lets it without your knowledge? Are you then to be hauled over the coals and fined 18,000€?
Get better soon!
Because you can't get a "Libro de reclamaciones " without being a fully legal business.No point in putting up a sign to say that you have this book (numbered sheets with several copies) if you haven't.
Peterrayner
23-01-2012, 13:06
Going back to the villa question, I have heard that some agents are having their owners sign a long term rental agreement with them for 6 or 12 months and saying that will make them legal.
Cant see it myself, the villas are still on the internet with weekly rental prices and they still dont have the complaints books etc etc so surely they can still be fined.
It might be a way round the problem for independent villas that the Tourismo can accept and avoids amending current laws pertaining to communities.
A long term let Contrato de Arrendaminento de Vivienda for 6-12 months would in effect put the property under the Law Of Urban Lettings and outside the control of the Tourismo as far has the owner is concerned. He gets is money and pays the taxes so is all legal ?????
How these agents then sublet the villas is another matter and maybe large companies would have access to and could afford the best legal advice available.
It would certainly be a commercial exercise by the agent and touristic explotation but the need for a sole agency wouldnt arise.
Soi I suspect the 7400 fines represents a total of less than 2000 private owners with a smaller balance of fines issued to companies and agencies.
and that total is for all islands so I estimate slightly less than 1000 private owners on Tenerife.
It would be interesting to see any evidence of slightly less than 1000 private owners on other islands being fined?
It would be interesting to see any evidence of slightly less than 1000 private owners on other islands being fined?
Just doing a bit of research on google to see if I could answer this, when I found some news from 2003 ... so who thinks this is a new problem :wow:
Tourism more than 11,000 beds found illegal in the last fifteen years
The overall volume of sanctions by the Executive for this reason amounted to 2.6 billion euros, according to data contained in the Official Gazette of the Canary Islands
(that should read "million" as it does in the origianl)
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=es&u=http://www.abc.es/hemeroteca/historico-18-10-2003/abc/Canarias/turismo-descubrio-mas-de-11000-camas-ilegales-en-los-ultimos-quince-a%25C3%25B1os_214719.html&ei=JHUdT7r8FJKxhAfbw4CrDA&sa=X&oi=translate&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCsQ7gEwAA&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dmulta%2Bcamas%2Bilegales%2Bcanarias%2 6hl%3Den%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26hs%3D5j1%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26biw%3D1280%26bih%3D606%26prmd%3Dimvn s
Peterrayner
23-01-2012, 16:06
It would be interesting to see any evidence of slightly less than 1000 private owners on other islands being fined?
Sorry cant supply any direct evidence other than some comments on other forums. These figures are just my own musings.
Lanazarote, Gran Canaria and Fueteventure would account for most I would guessand probably in that order.
Added after 20 minutes:
[QUOTE=doreen;139165]Just doing a bit of research on google to see if I could answer this, when I found some news from 2003 ... so who thinks this is a new problem :wow:
Tourism more than 11,000 beds found illegal in the last fifteen years
The overall volume of sanctions by the Executive for this reason amounted to 2.6 billion euros, according to data contained in the Official Gazette of the Canary Islands
(that should read "million" as it does in the origianl)
[QUOTE]
I will stand correcting...but it dosnt specifically state these sanctions were imposed on individual private owners or am I mistaken?
Perhaps these sanctions were imposed on some commercial letting agencies and on some touristic sites not operating in accordance with the laws.
Just doing a bit of research on google to see if I could answer this, when I found some news from 2003 ... so who thinks this is a new problem :wow:
Tourism more than 11,000 beds found illegal in the last fifteen years
The overall volume of sanctions by the Executive for this reason amounted to 2.6 billion euros, according to data contained in the Official Gazette of the Canary Islands
(that should read "million" as it does in the origianl)
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=es&u=http://www.abc.es/hemeroteca/historico-18-10-2003/abc/Canarias/turismo-descubrio-mas-de-11000-camas-ilegales-en-los-ultimos-quince-a%25C3%25B1os_214719.html&ei=JHUdT7r8FJKxhAfbw4CrDA&sa=X&oi=translate&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCsQ7gEwAA&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dmulta%2Bcamas%2Bilegales%2Bcanarias%2 6hl%3Den%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26hs%3D5j1%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26biw%3D1280%26bih%3D606%26prmd%3Dimvn s
So it appears a number off fines have been levied since 1988 not just in the last year only diffirence is the scale of enforcement. David
Peterrayner
23-01-2012, 16:37
So it appears a number off fines have been levied since 1988 not just in the last year only diffirence is the scale of enforcement. David
and of course the sanctions could not have included fines for internet website adverts in those days.
Because you can't get a "Libro de reclamaciones " without being a fully legal business.No point in putting up a sign to say that you have this book (numbered sheets with several copies) if you haven't.
But if someone says you are going to get a fine for not having a sign up, surely putting a sign up is a good idea, regardless of whether or not the sign is correct...
Peterrayner
23-01-2012, 16:53
and of course the sanctions could not have included fines for internet website adverts in those days.
it also occurs to me that forums like this didnt exist either so the information just wouldnt be readily available.
Sorry cant supply any direct evidence other than some comments on other forums. These figures are just my own musings.
Lanazarote, Gran Canaria and Fueteventure would account for most I would guessand probably in that order.
I'm not aware of any residential owner being fined in Lanzarote, and my ear is very close to the ground there. If it was being done on the scale you suggest, it would be on Lanzarote forums, media etc. Similarly for Fuerteventura. Lots of discussion, but only that.
We'll file this one under Peejay's musings!
Peterrayner
23-01-2012, 17:18
I'm not aware of any residential owner being fined in Lanzarote, and my ear is very close to the ground there. If it was being done on the scale you suggest, it would be on Lanzarote forums, media etc. Similarly for Fuerteventura. Lots of discussion, but only that.
We'll file this one under Peejay's musings!
Fair Enough :)
but if we take the total of 7400 fines issued to date and this has been confirmed by the lawyer acting for owners on our complex and if my calculations are reasonably correct that this involves some 2000+ private owners..
I take it then are you infering these have been issued exclusively on Tenerife. ???
Fair Enough :)
but if we take the total of 7400 fines issued to date and this has been confirmed by the lawyer acting for owners on our complex and if my calculations are reasonably correct that this involves some 2000+ private owners..
I take it then are you infering these have been issued exclusively on Tenerife. ???
I don't have the necessary knowledge to infer that. I can only say that I don't believe slightly less than 1000 fines have been issued elsewhere.
And if 2000+ private owners have been fined in Tenerife, not many have cancelled any bookings. Not a word of anyone losing holidays on Trip Advisor.
Are you appealing again or just gonna pay that?
appealing, its stage 2 now, nothing to loose by going to that stage. after that stage we then begin in actual court.
And if 2000+ private owners have been fined in Tenerife, not many have cancelled any bookings. Not a word of anyone losing holidays on Trip Advisor.
yes but try and find reviews for places like El Mirador on TA. Ïllegal accommodation isn't always listed on there.
I have had people calling me for accommodation because the owner has got scared / been fined and cancelled future bookings. _Most victims of this are just going to look for something else, not spend their time on review websites ranting and raving like an impotent jerk.
I've just seen someone complain about their normal apartment holiday rental isn't now avalible due to this
Panic stations
Someone said "why don't you just get another apartment thats legal"
oh yeah
restoring the peace and calm
x
yes but try and find reviews for places like El Mirador on TA. Ïllegal accommodation isn't always listed on there.
I have had people calling me for accommodation because the owner has got scared / been fined and cancelled future bookings. _Most victims of this are just going to look for something else, not spend their time on review websites ranting and raving like an impotent jerk.
On the contrary, when people start getting holidays cancelled, some not getting their money back, this is the first place they'll go............
http://www.tripadvisor.co.uk/ShowForum-g187479-i153-Tenerife_Canary_Islands.html
This has already been discussed on there.
So why did you say nothing had been mentioned on tripadvisor???
Peterrayner
23-01-2012, 21:57
I don't have the necessary knowledge to infer that. I can only say that I don't believe slightly less than 1000 fines have been issued elsewhere.
And if 2000+ private owners have been fined in Tenerife, not many have cancelled any bookings. Not a word of anyone losing holidays on Trip Advisor.
1. Where else would they be issued then ???
2. From your second statement I can only conclude then that you are assuming that the total number of fines as stated is totally ficticious.
So why did you say nothing had been mentioned on tripadvisor???
I said "Not a word of anyone losing holidays on Trip Advisor."
It's been discussed on Trip Advisor after someone read this forum, but there was no mention of anyone losing holidays.
1. Where else would they be issued then
2. From your second statement I can only conclude then that you are assuming that the total number of fines as stated is totally ficticious.
I'm not saying that at all. I just remain sceptical about the assumptions made on here - and particularly elsewhere - for a lot of things. When you look for evidence, the assumptions don't stack up in a number of cases.
there are many renters pulling ads of the internet and not taking bookings. I have a friend who has three properties in tenerife. A private apartment he does not rent and two dormant touristic studios. One is an ex hotel up past adeje and the other a studio on a golf resort. He was doing brill with the studio up past adeje on an internet site for 2 years, up to us getting fined. Then he pulled the ad the folowing monday. The studio on the golf resort he bought this spring , had renovated a bit , then he was going to rent on the internet about the time we got fined. As a result that place has had no guests this winter at all and none due this summer.
He has up to now done really well bringing guests to these fairly quiet tourist areas, he has made a good job of atracting people to not the buzzing los cristo/pdla zones.The bars restuarants near his places need the trade more so. The clampdown has defininetly made a reduction in trade in his case for the canary economy.
The spring /summer period will see the start of a decline in activity in the south, as the tourists who would come through the internet ads will be noticabley absent as regards bars and restuarants. This winter was booked anyway, people may rely on repeat bookings next winter on family and friends, but without the internet ads spring summer can not be full on as would be best for the canary economy. That loss of trade is a tradegy for the unemployed canarians and business owners.
Especially as you hear the hotel bookings are now up considerabley, the panic of 2008 which started this clampdown is past, due to factors not imagined, eg arab uprising egypt etc, and here we are about to see a downturn in apartment tourists that is now not needed to try to fill up the hotels.
The only sensible way forward is legalise small renting on the portugese model , and for the canary government to charge an annual licence to the renters, say 400 euro per year.
Peterrayner
23-01-2012, 22:39
I'm not saying that at all. I just remain sceptical about the assumptions made on here - and particularly elsewhere - for a lot of things. When you look for evidence, the assumptions don't stack up in a number of cases.
The evidence for the total fines at 7400 comes direct from a lawyer handling many appeals in Tenerife.
Are you disputing this evidence ???
Based on 3 fines per notification, as I stated previously, this amounts to a total of about 2000+ notifications.
Allowing for somew of these will have been issued to agencies then the total for private owners would be slightly less than 2000.
Given you have asserted there are non issued on the other islands I can only presume you are asserting
a) the total number of fines reported has issued is not accurate.
b) all the notifications have been issued on Tenerife alone.
Added after 4 Hours 57 minutes:
An interesting "sanction" listed on the BOC ref 355 against Royal Apartsol, S.L at an establishment named has Apartamentos Paraiso Royal. Listed on TripAdvisor as a 3* Hotel with 70 Bedrooms.
http://www.bing.com/search?q=paraiso+royal+apartments+tenerife&form=MSNH90&qs=AS&sk=AS1&pq=paraiso+royal&sp=2&sc=6-13&x=117&y=15
2 fines listed at 22,700E each for "grave" breeches of Law 7 /1995.
Added after 6 Hours 13 minutes:
Looking on Tripadvisor it generally has good reviews however there are some complaints mostly because the reception closes at 2pm daily and all weekend from Friday till Monday which causes problems for clients arriving in the evening or at weekends. A 3 star rating and seems to be tourisitic.
Typical complaint significantly from a Spanish family who no doubt would know the offical route tocompalin and denounce them.
Para empezar llegamos un sabado y la recepcion estaba cerrada hasta el lunes , nos dejaron las llaves en el bar de la piscina , faltaban sabanas y toallas para los niños , la explicacion siempre en ingles fue " la recepcion no abre hasta el Lunes" tubimos que apañarnos con nuestras toallas de playa.
Para estar en familia NO es lo mas adecuado y ademas como no controles un poco de ingles estas perdido , nadie habla español. No lo recomiendo hay otros sitios de igual precio y bastante mejor .
For starters we arrived on a Saturday and the reception was closed until Monday, They left us the keys in the pool bar, Bed linen and towels for the children were missing. The explanation provided in English was "the reception does not open until Monday" we had to make do with our beach towels.
For a family this is not the most suitable and also as we use English we are lost, no one speaks Spanish. Not recommended as there are other sites and much better price.
These heavy fines ??? are for
First.- Lack of availability of the mandatory complaint forms, as well as can be seen from inspection report No. 17994.
Second .- Lack of avsailability of the the Tourist Inspection Book as well is clear from the inspection report No. 17994.
Added after 8 minutes:
PS
They might also cop a fine for not having a Spanish speaker available (another old law now being enforced I gather)
The evidence for the total fines at 7400 comes direct from a lawyer handling many appeals in Tenerife.
Are you disputing this evidence ???
Based on 3 fines per notification, as I stated previously, this amounts to a total of about 2000+ notifications.
Allowing for somew of these will have been issued to agencies then the total for private owners would be slightly less than 2000.
Given you have asserted there are non issued on the other islands I can only presume you are asserting
a) the total number of fines reported has issued is not accurate.
b) all the notifications have been issued on Tenerife alone.
Added after 4 Hours 57 minutes:
An interesting "sanction" listed on the BOC ref 355 against Royal Apartsol, S.L at an establishment named has Apartamentos Paraiso Royal. Listed on TripAdvisor as a 3* Hotel with 70 Bedrooms.
http://www.bing.com/search?q=paraiso+royal+apartments+tenerife&form=MSNH90&qs=AS&sk=AS1&pq=paraiso+royal&sp=2&sc=6-13&x=117&y=15
2 fines listed at 22,700E each for "grave" breeches of Law 7 /1995.
Added after 6 Hours 13 minutes:
Looking on Tripadvisor it generally has good reviews however there are some complaints mostly because the reception closes at 2pm daily and all weekend from Friday till Monday which causes problems for clients arriving in the evening or at weekends. A 3 star rating and seems to be tourisitic.
Typical complaint significantly from a Spanish family who no doubt would know the offical route tocompalin and denounce them.
Para empezar llegamos un sabado y la recepcion estaba cerrada hasta el lunes , nos dejaron las llaves en el bar de la piscina , faltaban sabanas y toallas para los niños , la explicacion siempre en ingles fue " la recepcion no abre hasta el Lunes" tubimos que apañarnos con nuestras toallas de playa.
Para estar en familia NO es lo mas adecuado y ademas como no controles un poco de ingles estas perdido , nadie habla español. No lo recomiendo hay otros sitios de igual precio y bastante mejor .
For starters we arrived on a Saturday and the reception was closed until Monday, They left us the keys in the pool bar, Bed linen and towels for the children were missing. The explanation provided in English was "the reception does not open until Monday" we had to make do with our beach towels.
For a family this is not the most suitable and also as we use English we are lost, no one speaks Spanish. Not recommended as there are other sites and much better price.
These heavy fines ??? are for
First.- Lack of availability of the mandatory complaint forms, as well as can be seen from inspection report No. 17994.
Second .- Lack of avsailability of the the Tourist Inspection Book as well is clear from the inspection report No. 17994.
Added after 8 minutes:
PS
They might also cop a fine for not having a Spanish speaker available (another old law now being enforced I gather)
I don't suppose we would be too pleased to arrive at a holiday apartment complex in Torbay and find that nobody spoke English.
Peterrayner
24-01-2012, 13:24
I don't suppose we would be too pleased to arrive at a holiday apartment complex in Torbay and find that nobody spoke English.
Yes I dont have a problem with the requirement after all it is in Spain and I can hold a basic conversation and could certainly enquire about a bookong, the keys and towels etc. :)
I don't suppose we would be too pleased to arrive at a holiday apartment complex in Torbay and find that nobody spoke English.
Only too likely in this day and age. There was a hotel program on the box recently where nearly all the staff were Polish with hardly any English between them. The only English speaker I remember was the manager. If he was out... then you have your perfect storm scenario :)
Peterrayner
24-01-2012, 13:35
My understanding is that in order to work at customer face level in the tourist industry in Tenerife then the staff need a basic command of a second language usually English. Hence the busy classes at the Ofical Escula de Idiomas in Los Cris.
Out of simple courtesy this should be reciprocated :)
The evidence for the total fines at 7400 comes direct from a lawyer handling many appeals in Tenerife.
Are you disputing this evidence ???
Based on 3 fines per notification, as I stated previously, this amounts to a total of about 2000+ notifications.
Allowing for somew of these will have been issued to agencies then the total for private owners would be slightly less than 2000.
Given you have asserted there are non issued on the other islands I can only presume you are asserting
a) the total number of fines reported has issued is not accurate.
b) all the notifications have been issued on Tenerife alone.
I am not disputing or asserting any of these things. Neither am I able to accept them as fact, as I have no evidence other than what strangers post on a forum. My mind remains open.
My only assertion, which has been consistent all the way through, is that anyone who thinks the authorities are intent on stopping all holiday rentals in residential properties in the Canaries is bonkers.
Peterrayner
25-01-2012, 16:13
I am not disputing or asserting any of these things. Neither am I able to accept them as fact, as I have no evidence other than what strangers post on a forum. My mind remains open.
My only assertion, which has been consistent all the way through, is that anyone who thinks the authorities are intent on stopping all holiday rentals in residential properties in the Canaries is bonkers.
If you mind is indeed open then please accept that the evidence stated of 7400 fines, which I estimate represents abot 200 notifications issued to date comes direct from meetings with lawyers handling the appeals on behalf of owners involved.
I think one thing that is true there not going to stop illegal letting completley just have to look at the adverts that are still on hl and owners direct names have been removed so just a first name no apartment number ect and owners will have built up a client base over the years so they should get repeat bookings .
How far the inspectors will go to find out who the person is and what apartment is for holiday rent is anyones guess will they acually try to make a booking to find out does anyone know if they have done that or have they just went on the internet adverts. David
If you mind is indeed open then please accept that the evidence stated of 7400 fines, which I estimate represents abot 200 notifications issued to date comes direct from meetings with lawyers handling the appeals on behalf of owners involved.
You're wasting your time Peter
He only sees and hears what backs up his assertions, if it doesn't, he just refuses to accept that it is true.
I think one thing that is true there not going to stop illegal letting completley just have to look at the adverts that are still on hl and owners direct names have been removed so just a first name no apartment number ect and owners will have built up a client base over the years so they should get repeat bookings .
How far the inspectors will go to find out who the person is and what apartment is for holiday rent is anyones guess will they acually try to make a booking to find out does anyone know if they have done that or have they just went on the internet adverts. David
I'm sure holiday letting will never stop completly, yes there will be repeat bookings and so on, but you mustn't forget the way the law works in this country - it doesn't matter if if owners change their names to Donald Duck or hide away telephone numbers and so on. If the registered letters are returned to the Inspectorate as undelivered the fines will eventually be set against the property itself. OK for a few years, but ultimately the property has to change hands - either when the current owners decide to sell or move, or further down the line, when they have died and the property becomes part of an inheritance.
As I understand it, complex Presidents (and presumably Administrators) are also liable for fines for allowing illegal activity to be taking place and duty bound by law to provide correct names and addresses of owners (and in any event these details are on the land registry), so at some point the fines will be realised.
Peterrayner
25-01-2012, 19:29
I'm sure holiday letting will never stop completly, yes there will be repeat bookings and so on, but you mustn't forget the way the law works in this country - it doesn't matter if if owners change their names to Donald Duck or hide away telephone numbers and so on. If the registered letters are returned to the Inspectorate as undelivered the fines will eventually be set against the property itself. OK for a few years, but ultimately the property has to change hands - either when the current owners decide to sell or move, or further down the line, when they have died and the property becomes part of an inheritance.
As I understand it, complex Presidents (and presumably Administrators) are also liable for fines for allowing illegal activity to be taking place and duty bound by law to provide correct names and addresses of owners (and in any event these details are on the land registry), so at some point the fines will be realised.
As stated before Jose Escobado advices that family and friends use is outside the restrictions on holiday lettings.
Community Presidents are bound by Horizontal Law claause 7.2 to notify owners if they are acting illegally. It seems that Administrators have adviced them to minute that "short term commercail explotations on Residential sites is illegal" in the community meeting and most have posted sign on the community also to this effect.
Not sure how Administators would be liable for the actions of individual owners.
As I understand it, complex Presidents (and presumably Administrators) are also liable for fines for allowing illegal activity to be taking place.
Have you been talking to the fairies again? :duh:
You're wasting your time Peter
He only sees and hears what backs up his assertions, if it doesn't, he just refuses to accept that it is true.. To be quite honest, you can say that about a lot of people posting on this thread
Jimmyhow
26-01-2012, 12:03
I notice fines have appeared on the bulletins again today.
One on El Mirador 2 x 9k euros fine for sanctioning process in tourism and the second for no complaints book - both offences occuring 6/10/2010 which is way before most people removed their adverts from the websites.
Sundowner
26-01-2012, 23:06
I think that people need to take care on the advice that they recieve from a solicitor!
I am not sure of the legal system in Spain but most Countries have a similar system of solicitors who do the bog standard legal work and Barristers who are authoritative on legal matters and then in the U.k we have a higher level of Q.C. The higher you go the more it costs to have an opinion.........a nice phrase which means if they are wrong they still keep your cash!! But having said that if you get an opinion from a Q.C. it will be right 99% of the time!
So to my way of thinking if a solicitor gives you advice........do not take it as gospel!!
And remember there is another definition........one that solicits,seeks trade or contributions!
You're not seriously suggesting that some lawyers just argue the toss because they're paid to??????
I think that people need to take care on the advice that they recieve from a solicitor!
I am not sure of the legal system in Spain but most Countries have a similar system of solicitors who do the bog standard legal work and Barristers who are authoritative on legal matters and then in the U.k we have a higher level of Q.C. The higher you go the more it costs to have an opinion.........a nice phrase which means if they are wrong they still keep your cash!! But having said that if you get an opinion from a Q.C. it will be right 99% of the time!
So to my way of thinking if a solicitor gives you advice........do not take it as gospel!!
And remember there is another definition........one that solicits,seeks trade or contributions!
Different system over here ... an "Abogado" is really a combination of Solicitor & Barrister - you can consult them directly as you would a Solicitor, but they also are able to argue in Court as would a Barrister (and Solicitor in the lower Courts) - for instance, José Escobedo is currently acting for me in a High Court Appeal in Santa Cruz in a fairly specialised area of law - there is no equivalent of a QC, only some Abogados who concentrate more on particular fields, such as Mercantile Law (and can become recognised as experts).
(if you go to Court, you will also have to pay a "Procurador" - who presents the documents in Court and liaises with the Abogado during the lawsuit)
And José Escobedo suggested to me today to look at the various comments on his (and S. Saenz's) website http://www.tenerifelitigation.com
Under REACTIONS ABOUT THE CONTROVERSIAL PLAN TO ERADICATE ILLEGAL HOLIDAY RENTALS IN CANARY ISLANDS
It includes many of the points already made here - hopefully Turismo will listen to some of the arguments
Peterrayner
27-01-2012, 01:49
José Escobedo suggested to me today to look at the various comments on his (and S. Saenz's) website http://www.tenerifelitigation.com
Under REACTIONS ABOUT THE CONTROVERSIAL PLAN TO ERADICATE ILLEGAL HOLIDAY RENTALS IN CANARY ISLANDS
It includes many of the points already made here - hopefully Turismo will listen to some of the arguments
Very interesting article.
Tenerife Villas
27-01-2012, 02:03
Different system over here ... an "Abogado" is really a combination of Solicitor & Barrister - you can consult them directly as you would a Solicitor, but they also are able to argue in Court as would a Barrister (and Solicitor in the lower Courts) - for instance, José Escobedo is currently acting for me in a High Court Appeal in Santa Cruz in a fairly specialised area of law - there is no equivalent of a QC, only some Abogados who concentrate more on particular fields, such as Mercantile Law (and can become recognised as experts).
(if you go to Court, you will also have to pay a "Procurador" - who presents the documents in Court and liaises with the Abogado during the lawsuit)
And José Escobedo suggested to me today to look at the various comments on his (and S. Saenz's) website http://www.tenerifelitigation.com
Under REACTIONS ABOUT THE CONTROVERSIAL PLAN TO ERADICATE ILLEGAL HOLIDAY RENTALS IN CANARY ISLANDS
It includes many of the points already made here - hopefully Turismo will listen to some of the arguments
very good and compeling argument
Question from Saltnpepper on another thread
So many comments relate to apartments and villas - does anyone have any info about how this law affects rural houses? Would these fall into the same category as villas (even if someone didn't originally buy the property to rent out, but just to live in)?
There is a separate law regarding Rural Houses - will try to seek it out later today ... in the meantime, if anyone else can answer this ....
very good and compeling argument
From the conclusion on the website:
This is a colossal issue, with total fines said to be in excess of 100,000,000 euros being imposed on hapless apartment and villa owners, whose only “crime” was to permit someone to stay in their property for a few hundred euros.
So now the fines are said to be in excess of 100 million Euros?
I agree with everything except an amnesty for people letting out to holiday makers on residential complexes. They bought on a residential complex so should of factored in the risks. They have had their rewards, now it is time to pay for their risk.
Residents in our complex don't want holiday makers.
From the conclusion on the website:
This is a colossal issue, with total fines said to be in excess of 100,000,000 euros being imposed on hapless apartment and villa owners, whose only “crime” was to permit someone to stay in their property for a few hundred euros.
So now the fines are said to be in excess of 100 million Euros?
I agree with everything except an amnesty for people letting out to holiday makers on residential complexes. They bought on a residential complex so should of factored in the risks. They have had their rewards, now it is time to pay for their risk.
Residents in our complex don't want holiday makers.
problem is there are so many residential tourist lets that they are vitally important to the canary economy. Thats why the law was never enforced for 15 years. The canary government was not interested in residents rights at all, they needed tourists to feed the canary resort economy. This crackdown started due to hotels panicking in the crisis of 2008 and wanting all the illegal guests back in their hotels at that time.
the canary government will decide if letting is to be legal on residential complex,s and as in the past they will decide on how the money returns stack up for them. if they legalise as in the portugese model and charge an annual permit fee the let apartments will be useful taxearners for them, you could not blame them for wanting as many as possible in the main southern resorts. shame forthe tourist hating residents but maybe chosing to live in a major tourist resort was a poor choice for people who vehemently hate living near tourists?
It is a well written article and makes a good number of valid points. But of course it is written entirely from the perspective of those clients they represent and for whom thay are working.
Where I think it will fail to attract the interest of Tourismo is that it continues to make no differencial between residencial and touristic complexes. Nelson and others on here have been dragged into this through owning apartments on dormant touristic complexes where a reasonable argument for sorting the present mess out could be made and would stand some chance of being at least listened to.
Where is does seem to go wrong though is the fundemantal difference between the concept of touristic and residential accomodation. The rights to buy and live a reasonably quiet life are an important consideration which the reasoning in the article fail to recognise and could lead to the downfall of the argument.
It also doesn't touch on the fundamental reason as to why so many have/are about to be caught up in this, which is the mis-selling of apartments in the first place. A push for licensing of Estate Agents or at least the creation of some form of association to which anyone practising as an Estate Agent must belong, and which publishes proper guide-lines on good practice and what is legal / illegal under the laws of this country would go a long way to offering a long term solution to the issue. Calling for an amnesty does not.
problem is there are so many residential tourist lets that they are vitally important to the canary economy. Thats why the law was never enforced for 15 years. The canary government was not interested in residents rights at all, they needed tourists to feed the canary resort economy. This crackdown started due to hotels panicking in the crisis of 2008 and wanting all the illegal guests back in their hotels at that time.
the canary government will decide if letting is to be legal on residential complex,s and as in the past they will decide on how the money returns stack up for them. if they legalise as in the portugese model and charge an annual permit fee the let apartments will be useful taxearners for them, you could not blame them for wanting as many as possible in the main southern resorts. shame forthe tourist hating residents but maybe chosing to live in a major tourist resort was a poor choice for people who vehemently hate living near tourists?
You are in denial.
The canary government has already decided it is illegal to rent holidays on residential complexes. Now they are enforcing it.
If you read the lawyers spiel on the link you will see that they are pretty much resigned to the fact that they won't get any change out of the government for holiday lets on residential complexes and that the best they can hope for is an amnesty of the fines.
Nobody is fighting for any kind of deal where residential complexes can be used for tourists. As nobody is fighting for that, it is extremely unlikely that the government will make it so.
Don't just read the bits you like and HOPE it applies to you. Renting out holidays on residential complexes will attract fines and it is unlikely that will change, although an amnesty is being asked for.
"shame forthe tourist hating residents but maybe chosing to live in a major tourist resort was a poor choice for people who vehemently hate living near tourists?"
Shame for your STUPID decision more like.
Peterrayner
27-01-2012, 12:42
From the conclusion on the website:
This is a colossal issue, with total fines said to be in excess of 100,000,000 euros being imposed on hapless apartment and villa owners, whose only “crime” was to permit someone to stay in their property for a few hundred euros.
So now the fines are said to be in excess of 100 million Euros?
I agree with everything except an amnesty for people letting out to holiday makers on residential complexes. They bought on a residential complex so should of factored in the risks. They have had their rewards, now it is time to pay for their risk.
Residents in our complex don't want holiday makers.
The point is the residential sites in the main tourist areas ALREADY have perfectly LEGAL holidaymakers.
About 75% of owners on our residential complex are non residents who visit frequently and connsider themselves as "holidaymakers" and are entitled to use the property has such for themselves their family and friends.
If the commercial letting of the property was regulated has suggested by the lawyers by a regulated bi-annual licence scheme then
a) the income stream would be 10,000,000E sustainable income EVERY YEAR and without destroying the local property market.
b) Full time residents would have a more effective complaints procedure, because non-resident owners would manage the lettings themselves and wouldnt want to risk losing the licence to rent, which could be a sanction against any proven unacceptable behaviour.
Please dont bring in the arguement about noise, damage, etc from holidaymakers, we all know that long term tenants are just has responsible for these issues than holidaymakers.
100,000,000E revenue in fines that is uncollectable or at very best extremely expensive and massively time consuming and the lawyers will take most of it.
Against a system that will return 10,000,000E sustainable and growable each and every year and will expand and improve the local economy and property market.
IMHO it is a No Brainer but then politicians have No Brains. :)
Please dont bring in the arguement about noise, damage, etc from holidaymakers, we all know that long term tenants are just has responsible for these issues than holidaymakers.
Whilst that maybe true on your complex, don't assume it is the same on everyone else's.
IMHO it is a No Brainer but then politicians have No Brains. :)
I am seeing a similar pattern on here :)
Peterrayner
27-01-2012, 13:28
Whilst that maybe true on your complex, don't assume it is the same on everyone else's.
You mean like your assumptions made that all residents dont want to see or hear holidaymakers. :wink:
Added after 9 minutes:
It is a well written article and makes a good number of valid points. But of course it is written entirely from the perspective of those clients they represent and for whom thay are working.
Where I think it will fail to attract the interest of Tourismo is that it continues to make no differencial between residencial and touristic complexes. Nelson and others on here have been dragged into this through owning apartments on dormant touristic complexes where a reasonable argument for sorting the present mess out could be made and would stand some chance of being at least listened to.
Where is does seem to go wrong though is the fundemantal difference between the concept of touristic and residential accomodation. The rights to buy and live a reasonably quiet life are an important consideration which the reasoning in the article fail to recognise and could lead to the downfall of the argument.
It also doesn't touch on the fundamental reason as to why so many have/are about to be caught up in this, which is the mis-selling of apartments in the first place. A push for licensing of Estate Agents or at least the creation of some form of association to which anyone practising as an Estate Agent must belong, and which publishes proper guide-lines on good practice and what is legal / illegal under the laws of this country would go a long way to offering a long term solution to the issue. Calling for an amnesty does not.
Some good points raised. :)
IMHO I can see a sort of amnesty being arranged that would save face all round. 7000 fines (and climbing) will clogg up the courts, be very expensive to fund, and could potentially raise no income. Lets imagine then the appeals are offered at a much reduced level say around the minimum level.
This speeds up the settlements and payments, avoids the courts and potential legal costs, still raises about 10,000,000E income. Then they arrange a commercial letting licence scheme for private owners which then raises 10,000,000E sustainable income. Property values are protected for all residents and non residents alike.
Yes residents on residential sites may feel agrieved but the lettings are controlled unlike at present and the value of their property will increase not decrease as a result of this current action.
seanocelt
27-01-2012, 13:39
Whilst it rumbles on here is a FACT, for those in denial; I have 3 sets of people (one group is 8 strong) who cannot get booked for next January in Los Crstianos. The apartments they always use are being pulled off the market due to fear of fines, and Paloma Beach is booked up. They want accom near the market area but supply has dwindled ( despite claims that the websites are offering MORE accomodation). A small example if the impact for next year. What if the trend continues?
I think I will just leave you with your dreams Pete. You clearly have money sunk in this and are clinging to any straw that passes by. It's not me you need to convince though it's the government and as I have already pointed out to you very clearly nobody is fighting for tourists to be allowed on residential complexes. NOBODY Pete!
Why not re-read what the lawyers are arguing and what they are hoping to achieve because you can't seem to grasp that the argument is not for allowing tourists on residential complexes. The best the lawyers are haggling for is that there is an amnesty on the fines given out to those who have been caught illegally letting on residential complexes.
If nobody is arguing for tourists to be allowed on residential complexes Pete... why would these fantasy ideas you have matter to anyone apart from you and a bunch of other people illegally letting?
Peterrayner
27-01-2012, 13:46
Whilst it rumbles on here is a FACT, for those in denial; I have 3 sets of people (one group is 8 strong) who cannot get booked for next January in Los Crstianos. The apartments they always use are being pulled off the market due to fear of fines, and Paloma Beach is booked up. They want accom near the market area but supply has dwindled ( despite claims that the websites are offering MORE accomodation). A small example if the impact for next year. What if the trend continues?
This is exactly the arguments being raised by these lawyers, or a large part of the argument, and these are local experienced lawyers who know and understand the islands and the effects this action will have on emplyemnt and the economy.
The actions are short sighted, ill conceived, and impractical is basically what the lawyers are saying.
Whilst that maybe true on your complex, don't assume it is the same on everyone else's.
I am seeing a similar pattern on here :)
in fairness some tourists can be a problem to neighbours. on our place some of my bad ones have gone down in legend. I dont know if its just our town but once or twice we have had drunken domestic bust ups in the small hours. not very pleasant for neighbours. sometimes on holiday and in drink domestics can happen. other than that exited families with young children can be a bit hyper on day one round the pool, not what some residents want as they soak up the sun and read.
on the other hand i know i have sent many wonderful people from our town to our complex who cause no annoyance and befriend residents, eager to meet up each year as they return. some of these have gone to other apartments on our place after staying with us first.
you can not generalise and as trhe lawyer says the canary economy needs these guests. the hotels have the law in their favour but it is a case of the tail wagging the dog, the apartment lettings are too important to consider stopping.
Peterrayner
27-01-2012, 13:53
I think I will just leave you with your dreams Pete. You clearly have money sunk in this and are clinging to any straw that passes by. It's not me you need to convince though it's the government and as I have already pointed out to you very clearly nobody is fighting for tourists to be allowed on residential complexes. NOBODY Pete!
Why not re-read what the lawyers are arguing and what they are hoping to achieve because you can't seem to grasp that the argument is not for allowing tourists on residential complexes. The best the lawyers are haggling for is that there is an amnesty on the fines given out to those who have been caught illegally letting on residential complexes.
If nobody is arguing for tourists to be allowed on residential complexes Pete... why would these fantasy ideas you have matter to anyone apart from you and a bunch of other people illegally letting?
1. There you go making assumptions again. I long term let on one residential site and use the other for myself, family and friends. :}
2. They not MY IDEAS at all ??? I am just pointing you to the lawyers public statments which include a workable licence scheme for private owners as an alternative to the current actions.
3. I guess we will just have to wait and see how this all pans out.
1. There you go making assumptions again. I long term let on one residential site and use the other for myself, family and friends. :}
Call it an educated guess. I'm probably correct on the balance of probabilities :)
I repeat, NOBODY is fighting for residential complexes to allow tourist lets. Show me where there is an argument on that website of the lawyers that argues for letting tourists rent on residential complexes.
Call it an educated guess. I'm probably correct on the balance of probabilities :)
I repeat, NOBODY is fighting for residential complexes to allow tourist lets. Show me where there is an argument on that website of the lawyers that argues for letting tourists rent on residential complexes.
the fact is that these residential apartments have been taking tourists for 16 years to the great benefit of the canary economy. the lawyers know that the economy will suffer without all these guests. for 16 years the canary government let this happen , its only the hotel lobby that got this crackdown started due to their fears back in 2008 in the crissis.
the canary government has bowed to their pressure on this issue and not considered the overall impact on the wider community and economy in the canaries. it is protectionist buddyism, by a group of businessmen who are too close to government and have got their way so far in this matter.
Peterrayner
27-01-2012, 14:31
If this is not an argument for allowing private owners ( including communal residential ) then I dont know what is.
Clearly Touristic owners already have to register with the Tourismo and submit to inspections to be legal so I can only presume they mean that residential owners be allowed the same rights.
While it makes absolute sense to try to apply strict controls to the letting of properties in the tourist market, banning people who own villas from doing so, and creating a monopolistic system in the tourist complexes, is not the way to go forward, in any case the latter surely would be considered within European Law to be an anti-competitive practice. Much better would be to create a system of registration and inspection. This would benefit the tourist sector in several ways.
1) Properties being used for Tourism lets would have to be Registered so a registration fee, perhaps every six months could be charged.
2) Inspections could be made compulsory every six months, thereby creating desperately needed employment and this could be charged.
3) Owners could be made to either be resident in Tenerife or have a (registered) agent in Tenerife by Turismo / Hacienda.
4) All Tourist Lets would have to be notified to Turismo / Hacienda. The owner / agent would then be responsible for paying tax on the let.
The effect of the aforementioned would be that money could be generated through registration and inspection fees, tax would be paid on tourist lets and properties that did not have the proper safety equipment would be deregistered and / or fined. This would also create employment for many Canarian people in Registration, Administration and Inspection. If there were 10,000 properties registered at 500€ every six months in Tenerife, this would generate annually 10m euros, enough to employ at least 500 people. This does not include the massive increase in tax revenues.
Additionally, because owners could advertise themselves as “legal” and “Turismo approved” more foreign tourists would be inclined to come to Tenerife. The properties would be safe and fully equipped to minimum standards, so guests would be more likely to enjoy their holidays in Tenerife and come back the following year.
Turismo has one razon d’etre; that is to encourage a growth of quality, sustainable tourism in the Canary Islands. This attack on private lettings of property is working in entirely the wrong direction, reducing the number of available properties, by doing so increasing prices, putting more people into “all inclusive” options and by making less attractive the whole idea of tourists coming to Tenerife, and even more importantly, returning for a second and third visit as opposed to going to the emerging tourist destinations like Turkey, Greece, Croatia, Thailand and the Arab countries like Egypt, Tunisia, Dubai, and so on.
Turismo must turn back, remove the fines, issue an amnesty for people renting in Residential Complexes, and stop attacking the people who financed the economic growth enjoyed by Tenerife in the late 20th and early 21st century. This is not a game of cat and mouse with Turismo or Ashotel, this is not a minor issue that can be ignored. This is a colossal issue, with total fines said to be in excess of 100,000,000 euros being imposed on hapless apartment and villa owners, whose only “crime” was to permit someone to stay in their property for a few hundred euros. The alternative is economic misery, more timeshare, more all inclusive hotels and the end of Tenerife as a significant quality tourist destination.
golf birdie
27-01-2012, 14:56
well if the amount of tourists spending at the moment is a sign of things to come god help Tenerife. In 20 years I have never seen it so quiet. Everyone in business here that I talk to is saying the same. Its not good.
well if the amount of tourists spending at the moment is a sign of things to come god help Tenerife. In 20 years I have never seen it so quiet. Everyone in business here that I talk to is saying the same. Its not good.
the situation can only get worse. the thing is are the business owners blaming the crackdown on private renting for the slow trade , or are they blaming the hotels promoting ai deals ?
pressure must come from the canarians themselves who are being affected by this for the issue to be sorted favourabley.that means restaurants,bars,taxis shops have to lobby their politicians. first though they all need to accept that this crackdown is insane and suicidal for the canary economy, and that after 16 years of toleration now must come full legalisation.
Six more entries in today's Boletin - fines of 18.000 euros, various inspection dates February, April and August 2011
Two apartments in El Beril, one in Chipeque in Los Cristianos, two villas in Golf del Sur and one in El Medano
http://www.gobcan.es/boc/2012/019/
Peterrayner
27-01-2012, 16:19
Six more entries in today's Boletin - fines of 18.000 euros, various inspection dates February, April and August 2011
Two apartments in El Beril, one in Chipeque in Los Cristianos, two villas in Golf del Sur and one in El Medano
http://www.gobcan.es/boc/2012/019/
Chipeque is a shock always thought that was touristic
but then maybe its lapsed or this owner hasnt registered with the sole agent/tourismo.
Both Peter and Nelson have been vocal here since you are both caught up in this.
But.
There is a fundamental difference between the terms residential and touristic accomodation and it is a simple one too. Residential complexes are where people live, be it for a few months a year, or all year around - it doesn't matter. In many ways it is a secondary issue that residential complexes do not have receptions, life guards and so on - the fact is that, by definition, it is where people live and should be afforded the opportunity to do so without tourists and the problems they can bring.
At the same time, alongside residential accomodation there are, and rightly so, places where tourists are welcome to holiday and are afforded the necessary facilities.
The whole point in there being these different classes of accomodation is to allow both tourists and residents to enjoy the island as they wish, but to keep the two apart. If residents love being surrounded by tourists, then they are free to choose to buy or long-rent in a touristic complex, but they should also be allowed to live, if they so wish, on a residential complex with the benefit of not being disturbed by (sometimes) rowdy tourists.
If a country differentiates between the two, as the Canaries do, then economic arguments are somewhat secondary to the rights of individuals to choose where and how to live. If you took a straw-poll you would find that the majority residents living on residential complexes would prefer to be allowed to do so without being surrounded by short term letting, the only call for it to be permitted would come from owners who have been caught up in the enforcement of the laws, As I wrote earlier, there is much sense in the lawyers views overall, but seeking blanket permission for anyone to be able to holiday let wherever it happens to suit them, stands to aggrivate as many as it may appease.
Residential, be definition is where people live, touristic where people holiday.
Six more entries in today's Boletin - fines of 18.000 euros, various inspection dates February, April and August 2011
Two apartments in El Beril, one in Chipeque in Los Cristianos, two villas in Golf del Sur and one in El Medano
http://www.gobcan.es/boc/2012/019/
Golf Del Sur is a shock, the villas are on Royal Tenerife Country Club which is timeshare and I had been told that it was a legal site.
Peterrayner
27-01-2012, 16:43
What makes you thnk I am caught up in this ???
Residential, be definition is where people live, touristic where people holiday.
Forgive me but thats complete propoganda. :)
I "holiday" many times a year on my residential apartment and I am far from a resident.
Where do you get the notion that only residents can use residential apartments. I can invite any of my family and some close friends to use the apartment and they too are on holiday.
I also know full time residents who live on tourisitc sites quite happily.
Golf Del Sur is a shock, the villas are on Royal Tenerife Country Club which is timeshare and I had been told that it was a legal site.
Yes but you can still be in breech of the 1995 laws even on sites with touristic licences. Confusing isnt it.
I can invite any of my family and some close friends to use the apartment and they too are on holiday.
Yoa are quite correct as long as you are not charging them what could be deemed a commercial rate!
Golf Del Sur is a shock, the villas are on Royal Tenerife Country Club which is timeshare and I had been told that it was a legal site.
There are individuals named as owners, so cannot be timeshare now ... I know in Fuertaventura, where some timeshare units were sold off, they did not retain Touristic status, but the timeshare bungalows on the complex still did .... yes, confusing.
hailfuzz
27-01-2012, 16:48
Both Peter and Nelson have been vocal here since you are both caught up in this.
But.
There is a fundamental difference between the terms residential and touristic accomodation and it is a simple one too. Residential complexes are where people live, be it for a few months a year, or all year around - it doesn't matter. In many ways it is a secondary issue that residential complexes do not have receptions, life guards and so on - the fact is that, by definition, it is where people live and should be afforded the opportunity to do so without tourists and the problems they can bring.
At the same time, alongside residential accomodation there are, and rightly so, places where tourists are welcome to holiday and are afforded the necessary facilities.
The whole point in there being these different classes of accomodation is to allow both tourists and residents to enjoy the island as they wish, but to keep the two apart. If residents love being surrounded by tourists, then they are free to choose to buy or long-rent in a touristic complex, but they should also be allowed to live, if they so wish, on a residential complex with the benefit of not being disturbed by (sometimes) rowdy tourists.
If a country differentiates between the two, as the Canaries do, then economic arguments are somewhat secondary to the rights of individuals to choose where and how to live. If you took a straw-poll you would find that the majority residents living on residential complexes would prefer to be allowed to do so without being surrounded by short term letting, the only call for it to be permitted would come from owners who have been caught up in the enforcement of the laws, As I wrote earlier, there is much sense in the lawyers views overall, but seeking blanket permission for anyone to be able to holiday let wherever it happens to suit them, stands to aggrivate as many as it may appease.
Residential, be definition is where people live, touristic where people holiday.
Roudy tourists lol, deary, deary' deary me..........
There are individuals named as owners, so cannot be timeshare now ... I know in Fuertaventura, where some timeshare units were sold off, they did not retain Touristic status, but the timeshare bungalows on the complex still did .... yes, confusing.
It's a confusing site. It was never fully timeshare apparently, it's got a mix of timeshare and privately owned properties and they are all mixed together. It also had an onsite agent and a 24 hour reception but haven't been up there so don't know if that still applies.
Peterrayner
27-01-2012, 16:55
Yoa are quite correct as long as you are not charging them what could be deemed a commercial rate!
Of course why would I be charging family and close friends a commercial rental. ???
Which all goes to show that many people staying legally on residential complexes are indeed holidaymakers.
Used to be a first choice place but now has a onsite management but maybe they dont have 50plus 1 i dont know of anyone fined because of not being registered in our complex but were given time to register with the licence holder. David
Chipeque is a shock always thought that was touristic
but then maybe its lapsed or this owner hasnt registered with the sole agent/tourismo.
Peterrayner
27-01-2012, 17:06
Used to be a first choice place but now has a onsite management but maybe they dont have 50plus 1 i dont know of anyone fined because of not being registered in our complex but were given time to register with the licence holder. David
Yes I understood that as well David.
From earlier posts it seems tourisitc owners not registered with the tourismo WHERE given an amnesty of sorts and a 15 day grace period with which to comply with legal requirements.
Seems very clear this was NOT offered to residential owners.
I would fully expect this dual standard and discrimination to be brought forward should any case against a residential owner ever come before a judge. :wink:
Yes I understood that as well David.
From earlier posts it seems tourisitc owners not registered with the tourismo WHERE given an amnesty of sorts and a 15 day grace period with which to comply with legal requirements.
Seems very clear this was NOT offered to residential owners.
I would fully expect this dual standard and discrimination to be brought forward should any case against a residential owner ever come before a judge. :wink:
Why ??
As you can't legally holiday let a property on a residential complex under the law as it stands, there is no question of dual standard or discrimation; what they have done in touristic complexes is give the owners a deadline to comply with the law and make themselves legal..
Peterrayner
27-01-2012, 17:39
Why ??
As you can't legally holiday let a property on a residential complex under the law as it stands, there is no question of dual standard or discrimation; what they have done in touristic complexes is give the owners a deadline to comply with the law and make themselves legal..
??? exactly so why did they NOT do that to residential owners.
Both categories were in breech of the 1995 laws and both should have been given notice to comply.
Giving one category a 15 day grace period and not the other is clear discrimination in my book.
??? exactly so why did they NOT do that to residential owners.
Both categories were in breech of the 1995 laws and both should have been given notice to comply.
Giving one category a 15 day grace period and not the other is clear discrimination in my book.
Lets say you own a car and the police stop you because you have a defective light. They check your papers and all are good. They give you a warning to get it sorted and send you on your way. The good law abiding citizen that you normally are takes heed and fixes the problem. Everyone is happy.
On the other hand, let's say you get stopped driving another car with exactly the same situation. Broken light. The difference is that the car is stolen. Now, should the driver be given the same opportunity to fix the light and be sent on his way for fear of some kind or double standard prejudice or should the policeman do his job?
Double standards my butt :)
They came along in 1995 made this law but on our complex as ive said before allready that theres more than one onsite management company on our complex before the law was intraduced so its carried on like that since so a lot of apartments have stayed with the other onsite management and never got round to registering with the licence holder i think hence maybe the inspectors in our case were willing to give owners time to do so.
Peterrayner
27-01-2012, 17:51
Lets say you own a car and the police stop you because you have a defective light. They check your papers and all are good. They give you a warning to get it sorted and send you on your way. The good law abiding citizen that you normally are takes heed and fixes the problem. Everyone is happy.
On the other hand, let's say you get stopped driving another car with exactly the same situation. Broken light. The difference is that the car is stolen. Now, should the driver be given the same opportunity to fix the light and be sent on his way for fear of some kind or double standard prejudice or should the policeman do his job?
Double standards my butt :)
Twisting things to suit your argument there mate :wink:
Touristic owners who ignored the 15 day grace period and carried on advertising and not registered where just as illegal as the residential owners.
In fact they have both been charged with EXACTLY the same offence sand fived the same.
so the question still stands why was one category given a warning and the other not. Its the sort of detail that I would expect the defence lawyers to latch onto immediately. :)
??? exactly so why did they NOT do that to residential owners.
Both categories were in breech of the 1995 laws and both should have been given notice to comply.
Giving one category a 15 day grace period and not the other is clear discrimination in my book.
Not true
Touristic complexes can let as long as you are compliant with the law, residential complexes can't let their properties under any circumstances with the law as it currently stands so they could never become compliant with the law so there is no need to give them to become compliant .
Twisting things to suit your argument there mate :wink:
Touristic owners who ignored the 15 day grace period and carried on advertising and not registered where just as illegal as the residential owners.
In fact they have both been charged with EXACTLY the same offence sand fived the same.
so the question still stands why was one category given a warning and the other not. Its the sort of detail that I would expect the defence lawyers to latch onto immediately. :)
There...you said it yourself. They ignored it. They are therefore being called to account. Just like you would be if you ignored the broken light on your car after getting a warning.
The only one writhing around here for an angle is you Pete :)
Peterrayner
27-01-2012, 18:05
I will say it one last time :)
Both were deemed in breech of the SAME laws at the SAME time yet one was treated differently and given an advantage denied to the other.
Thats a clear definition of discxrimination IMHO. :)
all this crap...sorry wriggling.... is coming from your side not mine. :wink:
I will say it one last time :)
Both were deemed in breech of the SAME laws at the SAME time yet one was treated differently and given an advantage denied to the other.
Thats a clear definition of discxrimination IMHO. :)
all this crap...sorry wriggling.... is coming from your side not mine. :wink:
All I can say to that Pete is that I hope you and your 3 grannies enjoy the LEGAL apartment :)
Peterrayner
27-01-2012, 18:22
All I can say to that Pete is that I hope you and your 3 grannies enjoy the LEGAL apartment :)
??? 3 Grannies You must be confusing me with someone else or you are just making things up again. :angry:
Last time I had 3 females in the apartment was when I offered it free of charge to family group (mother and 2 sisters) after the mother was rushed to hospital from a nearby tourisitc site who then wanted £85 per night so they could stay on and tend to their seriously ill mother.
Another forum member offered to cover the electricity and laundry costs.
Peter
You are missing the point entirely.
There is one law, yes, but it covers two specific things (aside from villas and so on) - an apartment on a touristically licensed complex, can be let out by its owner to the tourist market provided you comply with the agent requirements. The same law also says if your complex is designated non-touristic - or to put that another way, residential, you only need to comply with the "it is illegal to advertise and let to the tourist market" requirement. Any number of your mates can use it year round for holidays, and if you don't normally live in it then you are perfectly entitled to use it for your holidays whenever you fancy. You are just not allowed to offer it to the open market and profit by doing so.
The underlying reasons of course are because residential complexes are often not equipped with what the Government considers essential services and protections for tourists in general.
I really cannot see what it is about this that you consider to be double standards - all it is is a recognition that there are two types of apartment complexes one being residential the other being touristic - and given it is the same Government which set the catagorisations up, why do you think the courts would have a different view?
I will say it one last time :)
Both were deemed in breech of the SAME laws at the SAME time yet one was treated differently and given an advantage denied to the other.
Thats a clear definition of discxrimination IMHO. :)
all this crap...sorry wriggling.... is coming from your side not mine. :wink:
Peter ... just what would a Residential owner have done during any "period of grace" if granted ??? As stated, they cannot make themselves legal as they cannot register with any agent or the Tourist Board ... where's the discrimination ... no lawyer would take up such an argument, I am afraid :)
As I understand it, complex Presidents (and presumably Administrators) are also liable for fines for allowing illegal activity to be taking place and duty bound by law to provide correct names and addresses of owners (and in any event these details are on the land registry), so at some point the fines will be realised.
Do you expect that presidents and administrators search on the internet if someone is illegally letting to avoid any responsibility? The fines are against the owners and not against the presidents or the administrators.
It is a well written article and makes a good number of valid points. But of course it is written entirely from the perspective of those clients they represent and for whom thay are working.
As said previously, I was not impressed about the “promotion campaign” in December last year from this lawyers office. The same for the information on their website, all provided to obtain more victims of this law.
So is there anything happening with regard to a new date for a meeting, does anyone know please?
A lawyer we use a lot for some of our communities (100% bilingual and also representing owners that illegally rented their property) said already in December that a meeting with the tourist board was very unlikely. You can visit them, so why would they come to the south? Quite sure that we will have another “informal” meeting with Mr. Escobedo in the near future.
Residents in our complex don't want holiday makers.
From my profession I can completely confirm this. Although not all holiday makers are the same they are (in general) the ones who disturb the residents the most.
problem is there are so many residential tourist lets that they are vitally important to the canary economy.
Nonsense, in general you can say that a very small percentage of owners rent out their property touristically. Or do you have some statistics that prove this assumption?
What we see is that in most complexes the majority of owners want us to report the owners illegally letting their property at the “consejeria de turismo”. For those interested, you can do so at the (in the south) “cabildo” located in the old unemployment office (not located in the valdes center anymore).
the canary government will decide if letting is to be legal on residential complex,s
They already did. It is legal except letting touristically.
Whilst it rumbles on here is a FACT, for those in denial; I have 3 sets of people (one group is 8 strong) who cannot get booked for next January in Los Crstianos. The apartments they always use are being pulled off the market due to fear of fines, and Paloma Beach is booked up. They want accom near the market area but supply has dwindled ( despite claims that the websites are offering MORE accomodation). A small example if the impact for next year. What if the trend continues?
Always nice to know that these are the FACTS. If the trend continues the market will for sure change. New hotels and tourist complexes will be built. (quite important with the unemployment rates at the moment).
Chipeque is a shock always thought that was touristic
but then maybe its lapsed or this owner hasnt registered with the sole agent/tourismo.
Chipeque is a residential complex.
bonitatime
28-01-2012, 09:45
the situation can only get worse. the thing is are the business owners blaming the crackdown on private renting for the slow trade , or are they blaming the hotels promoting ai deals ?
pressure must come from the canarians themselves who are being affected by this for the issue to be sorted favourabley.that means restaurants,bars,taxis shops have to lobby their politicians. first though they all need to accept that this crackdown is insane and suicidal for the canary economy, and that after 16 years of toleration now must come full legalisation.
What I don't get is to my understanding you own on a tourist complex you just don't want to obey the law and get a sole agent.
The rest of the difficulties i.e. no touristic development don't apply to you or am I mistaken?
As far as I am aware business owners are blaming the crisis for the downturn in income.
I am not aware of any Canarian who is interested in these problems and they are certainly not in the press.
One question is the lawyer who is dealing with most of these cases the one who dealt with the original case?
Erm, Paloma beach is NOT booked up for next January Seanocelt, so if you have a group of eight that still need accommodating just get in touch
Added after 8 minutes:
What I don't get is to my understanding you own on a tourist complex you just don't want to obey the law and get a sole agent.
The rest of the difficulties i.e. no touristic development don't apply to you or am I mistaken?
One question is the lawyer who is dealing with most of these cases the one who dealt with the original case?
Right on both counts
Peterrayner
28-01-2012, 11:16
Peter ... just what would a Residential owner have done during any "period of grace" if granted ??? As stated, they cannot make themselves legal as they cannot register with any agent or the Tourist Board ... where's the discrimination ... no lawyer would take up such an argument, I am afraid :)
my advice would have been for each owner to assess the risks involved and if they felt it was too great then to remove all internet based advertising immediately.
One question is the lawyer who is dealing with most of these cases the one who dealt with the original case?
What original case ? :)
my advice would have been for each owner to assess the risks involved and if they felt it was too great then to remove all internet based advertising immediately.
But we are back to the argument - do you give a second chance to someone who can do things legally (not speed again after a warning) or to the illegal actor as well (don't speed again in your stolen or uninsured car)
EDIT - actually "uninsured" is a bad analogy, for at least insurance can be taken out, whereas Residential owners can never become legal under the existing laws :)
seanocelt
28-01-2012, 15:31
Oh i will be in touch alright. We have had a decent January in the pub, and i always tell people to book Paloma, as they all have been moaning about getting moved about at Victoria Court, or the sub standard/lack of upkeep at others. 2 couples have been along to reception but said the weeks they wanted were full. I have given all groups my email, and told them to contact me once flights are booked, so i can give you accurate dates. Expect more of this, as the adverts get pulled from people on , for example El Mirador, Sur y Sol and even Los Angeles( which surely is touristic?) Anyone on here who has availability in Loc Cris next Jan, PM me. Not encouraging people to break the law John, its being done anyway, but want good people to return to the bar. Sean. :wink2:
Oh i will be in touch alright. We have had a decent January in the pub, and i always tell people to book Paloma, as they all have been moaning about getting moved about at Victoria Court, or the sub standard/lack of upkeep at others. 2 couples have been along to reception but said the weeks they wanted were full. I have given all groups my email, and told them to contact me once flights are booked, so i can give you accurate dates. Expect more of this, as the adverts get pulled from people on , for example El Mirador, Sur y Sol and even Los Angeles( which surely is touristic?) Anyone on here who has pulled an ad but still lets out in Los Cris for now, PM me. Not encouraging people to break the law John, its being done anyway, but want good people to return to the bar. Sean. :wink2:
Yes you are!
delderek
28-01-2012, 15:58
Oh i will be in touch alright. We have had a decent January in the pub, and i always tell people to book Paloma, as they all have been moaning about getting moved about at Victoria Court, or the sub standard/lack of upkeep at others. 2 couples have been along to reception but said the weeks they wanted were full. I have given all groups my email, and told them to contact me once flights are booked, so i can give you accurate dates. Expect more of this, as the adverts get pulled from people on , for example El Mirador, Sur y Sol and even Los Angeles( which surely is touristic?) Anyone on here who has pulled an ad but still lets out in Los Cris for now, PM me. Not encouraging people to break the law John, its being done anyway, but want good people to return to the bar. Sean. :wink2:
Los Angeles touristic, you just gotta be joking, this was built as low cost housing for locals years and years ago.
Peterrayner
28-01-2012, 16:10
But we are back to the argument - do you give a second chance to someone who can do things legally (not speed again after a warning) or to the illegal actor as well (don't speed again in your stolen or uninsured car)
EDIT - actually "uninsured" is a bad analogy, for at least insurance can be taken out, whereas Residential owners can never become legal under the existing laws :)
It must be me but I just cant accept that one is given a chance to comply by registering and the otyher offender is not given a chance.
It also seems to me these sanctions are based on the internet web advertising by owners both touristic and residential so they should be afforded the same chance to comply by removing the ads and acting then in accordance with the cuurent laws.
You cn see the difference Peter and you know it
Peterrayner
28-01-2012, 21:29
You can see the difference Peter and you know it
The only difference for me is one was treated differently to the other.
They were both were acting illegally thats not disputable. Where sanctions have been issued to both they are exactly the same.
It seems to me some people want to excuse one owner acting illegally and it appears that some were offered a 15 day stay of execution and presumably have avoided the fines.
All the past arguments such about raking in illegal money for 15 years and not paying taxes for example seems to suddenly been forgotten as far has these owners are concerned ???
I always understood that the law had to be applied equally to all.
I always understood that the law had to be applied equally to all.
Ohhh... when did that start?
Peterrayner
28-01-2012, 22:14
Ohhh... when did that start?
Its been around a while ..well in theoryat least :wink:
The Rule of Law
(by Lord McCluskey)
We all use words or expressions like "democracy", "human rights" and "The Rule of Law". But it is not clear that we all share an agreed understanding of what they mean. Perhaps the least well understood is with the concept of "The Rule of Law".
We can properly say that we live under The Rule of Law if our State has a legal system which has the following essential characteristics:
[1] Knowing what the Law is:
The Law must be knowable: in other words, the content of the Law (both Criminal and Civil) must be published by the State in such a way that all citizens can discover what rights and responsibilities are given to, or imposed upon, them by the Law.
[2] Equality before the Law:
The Law must be applied equally to all citizens, to all juristic persons (e.g. companies) and to all public bodies and officials, including Ministers of the Executive.
[3] Access to Justice:
The citizens must be able to claim (assert and vindicate) their rights in independent Courts (or Tribunals). This requirement (along with #[1]) means that there must be a body of competent and independent lawyers, or at least paralegals, available to advise and represent citizens in understanding and pursuing their rights.
[4] Independent Judiciary:
The judges who decide all questions of rights in Courts and Tribunals must be independent and competent. To be "independent" the judges must have security of tenure: that means that no judge can be dismissed for the reason that the Government or other public non-judicial body regards his/her judicial decisions as unacceptable. Judges must not be able to be dismissed except for misconduct or unfitness: and the judgment as to whether or not any judge has been guilty of misconduct, or is unfit, must be made by a body of persons independent of Government. Judges must be properly paid to eliminate the risk of bribery. They must be trained and experienced in the application of the Law.
[5] Public Justice:
The Courts must be open to the public, including the Press. Judgments/Decisions in contested cases must be delivered in public and the judges must give reasons explaining their decisions. No person or agency of any kind can be allowed to make private representations to judges about the rights of citizens, except in accordance with published Rules of Court governing the procedures of the Courts.
[6] Challenging Executive action:
The actions, including the intended actions, of the Executive, of the police and of other public and private agencies must be able to be challenged and reviewed in the Courts on the basis that they are actions not authorised by the Law.
[7] Court decisions to be respected:
Once the Courts have delivered the final judgment in any litigation, the citizens and all agencies of the State affected by that decision are bound by it and must respect and act in accordance with it.
Its been around a while ..well in theoryat least :wink:
The Rule of Law
(by Lord McCluskey)
We all use words or expressions like "democracy", "human rights" and "The Rule of Law". But it is not clear that we all share an agreed understanding of what they mean. Perhaps the least well understood is with the concept of "The Rule of Law".
We can properly say that we live under The Rule of Law if our State has a legal system which has the following essential characteristics:
[1] Knowing what the Law is:
The Law must be knowable: in other words, the content of the Law (both Criminal and Civil) must be published by the State in such a way that all citizens can discover what rights and responsibilities are given to, or imposed upon, them by the Law.
[2] Equality before the Law:
The Law must be applied equally to all citizens, to all juristic persons (e.g. companies) and to all public bodies and officials, including Ministers of the Executive.
[3] Access to Justice:
The citizens must be able to claim (assert and vindicate) their rights in independent Courts (or Tribunals). This requirement (along with #[1]) means that there must be a body of competent and independent lawyers, or at least paralegals, available to advise and represent citizens in understanding and pursuing their rights.
[4] Independent Judiciary:
The judges who decide all questions of rights in Courts and Tribunals must be independent and competent. To be "independent" the judges must have security of tenure: that means that no judge can be dismissed for the reason that the Government or other public non-judicial body regards his/her judicial decisions as unacceptable. Judges must not be able to be dismissed except for misconduct or unfitness: and the judgment as to whether or not any judge has been guilty of misconduct, or is unfit, must be made by a body of persons independent of Government. Judges must be properly paid to eliminate the risk of bribery. They must be trained and experienced in the application of the Law.
[5] Public Justice:
The Courts must be open to the public, including the Press. Judgments/Decisions in contested cases must be delivered in public and the judges must give reasons explaining their decisions. No person or agency of any kind can be allowed to make private representations to judges about the rights of citizens, except in accordance with published Rules of Court governing the procedures of the Courts.
[6] Challenging Executive action:
The actions, including the intended actions, of the Executive, of the police and of other public and private agencies must be able to be challenged and reviewed in the Courts on the basis that they are actions not authorised by the Law.
[7] Court decisions to be respected:
Once the Courts have delivered the final judgment in any litigation, the citizens and all agencies of the State affected by that decision are bound by it and must respect and act in accordance with it.
That's just State sponsored propaganda to make little people feel like life is fair. We all know the law does not really work like that :)
Peterrayner
28-01-2012, 22:27
That's just State sponsored propaganda to make little people feel like life is fair. We all know the law does not really work like that :)
So glad you agree with me then that the law has not been applied equally in respect of this issue. :)
Los Angeles actually is dormant-touristic but the chances of regaining a licence are remote as most of the apartments are used as low cost long term rental.
Los angeles is probably my favourite example of how bad Things can get when complexes lose their touristic status.
An example To all!
So glad you agree with me then that the law has not been applied equally in respect of this issue. :)
It's not that I agree with you on this Pete, it's that I believe the law to be applied randomly as the law makers and law enforcers see fit.
Should the law of been applied evenly here, then it is right that those who could make themselves legal by getting a few papers up to date got the chance to do that. No amount of papers could make it legal to rent to holidaymakers on a residential complex. People without the correct papers had made an administrative error and were given a chance to correct it. The others were just breaking the law.
Let's just be thankful that at least some got a chance ;)
Peterrayner
28-01-2012, 22:53
People without the correct papers had made an administrative error and were given a chance to correct it.
Thats a very fine distinction :)
Let's just be thankful that at least some got a chance ;)
Yes can agree with that :) It would have been even better if some other also had a chance. :wink:
seanocelt
29-01-2012, 03:49
Los Angeles actually is dormant-touristic but the chances of regaining a licence are remote as most of the apartments are used as low cost long term rental.
Los angeles is probably my favourite example of how bad Things can get when complexes lose their touristic status.
An example To all!
Its a bit minging, and im being kind here. Thats why i blag your gaff, stayed there as a tourist, hard to beat. BUT; if /when you get overwhemed and full, my friends have few options, so, sorry "oasis" but people are already doing things illegally, and i want TENERIFE to flourish, if that means a few brave souls risking a fine, then its that option for the tourists or another destination. ( hotels are not what they want) NONE of us want them to go to another destination, so, no matter what your personal "position/stance" is............its Tenerife 1st, then lets worry about the legal stuff, no? I posted nearly 2 years ago about the impact of hotel lobby groups, but i do and always will, put THIS island 1 st, no matter what.
no matter what your personal "position/stance" is............its Tenerife 1st, then lets worry about the legal stuff, no?
No!
NONE of us want them to go to another destination
I want them to go to a LEGAL holiday let. I don't want them on my complex and neither do the majority of my neighbors.
Could it just be that the powers that be don't actually want Tenerife to remain like Blackpool or Brighton in the sun? Could it be that the powers that be have bigger and better plans for holiday makers coming to Tenerife. Could it be that the powers that be want Tenerife to be a world-class holiday destination where people from all over the world can enjoy a quality, relaxing break in world class surroundings?
Perhaps this is why the powers that be want rid of private holiday lets on residential complexes and rid of run down holiday complexes that have fallen behind with their licensing. Perhaps there is a bigger picture here?
Peterrayner
29-01-2012, 11:38
No!
I want them to go to a LEGAL holiday let. I don't want them on my complex and neither do the majority of my neighbors.
Could it just be that the powers that be don't actually want Tenerife to remain like Blackpool or Brighton in the sun? Could it be that the powers that be have bigger and better plans for holiday makers coming to Tenerife. Could it be that the powers that be want Tenerife to be a world-class holiday destination where people from all over the world can enjoy a quality, relaxing break in world class surroundings?
Perhaps this is why the powers that be want rid of private holiday lets on residential complexes and rid of run down holiday complexes that have fallen behind with their licensing. Perhaps there is a bigger picture here?
So the bucket and spade brigade family holidays can sod off then all they want is the golfers and the 5* all inclusives :(
What first struck me about Tenerife (and they had to drag me her kicking and screaming first) was there is something for everyone.
I for one hope it always remains that way.... but then what do I know. :wink:
On the property purchase side, most touristic complexes are now looking a bit run down and shabby. Clients are mentioning this more and more when on viewings when they want to buy smart, modern property that they can legally rent out. Given this law is around 16 years old, the newest complexes are a minimum of 16 years old and a lot of them are looking very dated....
I have only found 3 that are new and have the correct licenses in place. Neither of them are great investments when looking at them as holiday rentals through the exploitacion license holder. Tis a shame they dont offer the same as Paloma Beach and take a management fee for owners to put their own clients in. Without this, the property investment market is looking pretty bleak for those wanting to buy something modern and up to date.
seanocelt
29-01-2012, 13:20
On the property purchase side, most touristic complexes are now looking a bit run down and shabby. Clients are mentioning this more and more when on viewings when they want to buy smart, modern property that they can legally rent out. Given this law is around 16 years old, the newest complexes are a minimum of 16 years old and a lot of them are looking very dated....
I have only found 3 that are new and have the correct licenses in place. Neither of them are great investments when looking at them as holiday rentals through the exploitacion license holder. Tis a shame they dont offer the same as Paloma Beach and take a management fee for owners to put their own clients in. Without this, the property investment market is looking pretty bleak for those wanting to buy something modern and up to date.
I honestly dont see the investment angle at all now. Typical 1 beds at 100k ish and a return of 6k net P.A? No great considering hassle, refurbs etc. Happy belated birthday.
Simon M. I do get your drift, i hate having tourists on the complex i live in. But if the choice is hotels or another destination, many will chose the latter. I am not supporting law breakers, and we all know a licenced , properly managed scenario like the Algarve is the answer (plenty illegal beds there too still mind you).
No!
I want them to go to a LEGAL holiday let. I don't want them on my complex and neither do the majority of my neighbors.
Could it just be that the powers that be don't actually want Tenerife to remain like Blackpool or Brighton in the sun? Could it be that the powers that be have bigger and better plans for holiday makers coming to Tenerife. Could it be that the powers that be want Tenerife to be a world-class holiday destination where people from all over the world can enjoy a quality, relaxing break in world class surroundings?
Perhaps this is why the powers that be want rid of private holiday lets on residential complexes and rid of run down holiday complexes that have fallen behind with their licensing. Perhaps there is a bigger picture here?
Then why are the authorities not getting organised and start providing the class of flights that 5star customers want or is it that there are very few true 5 star hotels
I honestly dont see the investment angle at all now. Typical 1 beds at 100k ish and a return of 6k net P.A?
.
I dont see any angle either for an investor, I also think a return of 6k p.a. on a 100k apartment is way over optomism.
After any costs you would be lucky to see ANY profit.
Of course prior to the fine scenario when holiday rentals were the norm, with a yearly rental calendar of say 30 -35 weeks booked, the income would have covered the finance of a 70% mortgage just about, but cash income?
Anyone looking at buying an apartment now needs serious advice. I just dont understand the government allowing the tourist department to give the building/property sector such a kicking during this recession
So the bucket and spade brigade family holidays can sod off then all they want is the golfers and the 5* all inclusives :(
What first struck me about Tenerife (and they had to drag me her kicking and screaming first) was there is something for everyone.
I for one hope it always remains that way.... but then what do I know. :wink:
The Government has been continually moving toward the 5* golfing style holiday for the past 15 years or so - almost the same time as the law has been in place. This is why places like Veronicas have been under threat of the Bulldozer for so long, why monstrosities (in their view) like SkyPark and Pleasure Island (as was) have had their lives made more and more difficult and why the only new construction that has been permitted has been 5* hotels or residential complexes.
It is also why, although being unsuccesful (so far) in the destruction of the likes of Veronicas, they have redeveloped almost every square inch around it.
Once the "brown envelopes" have been arranged the Tenerife of the 90s will be long gone.
I honestly dont see the investment angle at all now. Typical 1 beds at 100k ish and a return of 6k net P.A? No great considering hassle, refurbs etc. Happy belated birthday.
I dont see any angle either for an investor, I also think a return of 6k p.a. on a 100k apartment is way over optomism.
After any costs you would be lucky to see ANY profit.
Of course prior to the fine scenario when holiday rentals were the norm, with a yearly rental calendar of say 30 -35 weeks booked, the income would have covered the finance of a 70% mortgage just about, but cash income?
6% plus can be achieved, I see this regularly on studios. But I agree, it can be very difficult now. In general apartments can be a great lifestyle purchase/lifestyle investment with rental income offsetting many of the costs of ownership. But when you have restrictive practices in place on touristic complexes (must hand over for 9 months including all peak times for example) and low payouts from the monopolistic license holders who pretty much have full say in what they keep and what you get, its pretty bleak. If you want pure investment then look elsewhere....
Even with a lifestyle investment and income to offset mortgage and community etc you now have to know if a complex has touristic status at all, if there is a license holder, what % they have, how much they pay for hands free management, how well they have treat owners in the past (reducing payouts etc) and what their attitude is to you putting your own clients in. Plus after doing all this and buying, the rental business on your complex can be sold to someone else who may have a different approach. Minefield....
Buying a apartment for investment on a tourist complex where you hand over the apartment to the exploiter is a non starter they only give about 4000 euros a year they say when you can stay and if you stay more than 4 weeks you have to pay to stay in your own apartment.
However if you lucky enough to have a licence holder who will let you do your own bookings and let them look after the apartment cleaning ect youcan turn over £9000 per year before you pay the management,communitee fees,taxes,mortgage but this will give you a paper profit but as you cant claim all your mortgage payment just the interest you will not have any cash profit so not a pure investment as cim says but you get to use it and the renters help pay the mortgage.
So in short its more a lifestyle investment you not make loads of money in fact in most tourist complexes you loose money as they dont pay enough and heres the the other side you and every one else will will end up staying in a basic apartment because theres no incentive to invest in it this where i agree that private apartments are usually much better than the ones available from hotel chain run ones dont want to put off anyone buying Tenerife as ive found is a great place to own a apartment. David
delderek
29-01-2012, 19:31
To me, buying to let is now a non starter, when property pices were rising, it was ok as your capital investment was increasing, but now with prices diving, its a very risky strategy.
Buying a apartment for investment on a tourist complex where you hand over the apartment to the exploiter is a non starter they only give about 4000 euros a year they say when you can stay and if you stay more than 4 weeks you have to pay to stay in your own apartment.
However if you lucky enough to have a licence holder who will let you do your own bookings and let them look after the apartment cleaning ect youcan turn over £9000 per year before you pay the management,communitee fees,taxes,mortgage but this will give you a paper profit but as you cant claim all your mortgage payment just the interest you will not have any cash profit so not a pure investment as cim says but you get to use it and the renters help pay the mortgage.
So in short its more a lifestyle investment you not make loads of money in fact in most tourist complexes you loose money as they dont pay enough and heres the the other side you and every one else will will end up staying in a basic apartment because theres no incentive to invest in it this where i agree that private apartments are usually much better than the ones available from hotel chain run ones dont want to put off anyone buying Tenerife as ive found is a great place to own a apartment. David
We aim to give owners 7000- 7500 euros per year at the moment !
Loaded your diffirent im talking from my own experiance the hotel chains dont give that much in 2004 i was offered 3500 euro its now as i understand its 4000 euro. David
the thing is though, the simply fact that owners refurb their apartments to a high degree and then rent out at rates that just cover outgoings, mortgages,community fees etc, is on the one hand why they are so popular with guests, and on the other hotels and sole agent sites see this as cheap unfair competition when the economic times are hard.
I got a right hammering on this thread back in november , for saying that I only rented out to just cover costs, and was happy to be able to do that.
good to see that today everyone is accepting that this is the case with apartment purchases.
You got a hammering because you bought 2 apartments to cover costs ! If you'd got one it would be fair comment! But you don't buy two properties on mortgages without trying to gain financially - why would you need two?
Added after 7 minutes:
the thing is though, the simply fact that owners refurb their apartments to a high degree and then rent out at rates that just cover outgoings, mortgages,community fees etc, is on the one hand why they are so popular with guests, and on the other hotels and sole agent sites see this as cheap unfair competition when the economic times are hard.
.
And this statement is far from accurate!
I regularly refurb my apartments but it's like pulling teeth getting owners to keep up to date with standards - the only owner I can say has ever "led the way" is Doreen .
You got a hammering because you bought 2 apartments to cover costs ! If you'd got one it would be fair comment! But you don't buy two properties on mortgages without trying to gain financially - why would you need two?
Added after 7 minutes:
And this statement is far from accurate!
I regularly refurb my apartments but it's like pulling teeth getting owners to keep up to date with standards - the only owner I can say has ever "led the way" is Doreen .
I did fully explain myself in november , its all still back on the thread, but since you did not read what I said then , here goes again.
Bought the first apartment for the dream and as an investment. we had holidayed on tenerife for years, always in hotels, we loved the place. We were considering a uk buy to let , a house to rent out , but due to the uk price boom and doing ok with the tenerife rentals we decided, a year later to buy apartment 2 rather than a uk buy to let.
The same scenario would have applied however , if we had bought a uk buy to let, given a repayment mortgage rental would hopefully only just cover costs, there would be no extra cash left over or any sort of profit.
What I would have hoped for before this crackdown kicked in, would be a future income from the apartments in years to come ,when the mortgages had been fully repaid. In those hoped for golden years to come at that time it would have been nice to get a modest return from them ,in the absence of mortgages, in our retirement.
Glad that Doreen has done her apartment up well, ours over the years have not been modernised to the degree others have done , but they are very comfortable and we are improving them as we go.
Many of our guests praise the little things like abundant cuterly and plates and glassware, rather than furniture style.
But as I have said,and others have posted , our prices reflect just our desire to cover our outgoings.
But Nelson you can't say buying 2nd and 3rd properties on a mortgage is some sort of "labour of love" - with every passing month the properties have a little bit more paid off from what is owed and eventually you own the place outright - that is your profit! The money you earn in the meantime is balancing the books - it is a business decision to own several apartments and use the income to pay for them.
But Nelson you can't say buying 2nd and 3rd properties on a mortgage is some sort of "labour of love" - with every passing month the properties have a little bit more paid off from what is owed and eventually you own the place outright - that is your profit! The money you earn in the meantime is balancing the books - it is a business decision to own several apartments and use the income to pay for them.
of course it is, its a long term investment, you are paying the mortgage from the rental income and also hoping in better times for an increase in the value of the property. Plus at the very end of the mortgage term after years of making your payments you hope to have finally got the property fully paid off and at that time you could either sell it or continue to rent it out, and because you then have no mortgage you could get an income from it.
The point is that during your period of buying on the mortgage it would be possible to rent it out for less than the managed apartments charge per week, simply because you are not paying for excessive maid services and 24 hour receptions. On top of this an agent requires a profit , naturally, so a small renter doing things themselves just to cover costs and not trying to generate an income to live on week to week, can charge less than the agency style operation.
This is nothing unusal in the wider world and nothing to be ashamed of, its just how things are.
This does not mean that larger fully staffed aparthotels can not exist and find customers or that everyone wants to holiday in private apartments and that soon there will be no hotels left.
There is always goinfg to be hotels, large apartment complex,s and hopefully small private rented apartments, the canary economy needs them all and is stronger in having this diversity of tourist accomodation options.
But as I have said,and others have posted , our prices reflect just our desire to cover our outgoings.
This type of train of thought breaks markets.
jogger321
30-01-2012, 11:04
We aim to give owners 7000- 7500 euros per year at the moment !
..And with anyone wanting to buy on Paloma today I guess a typical 1 bedder would be correct me if i'm wrong 150,000 euros???
Not sure that represents a particularly good investment and I guess that figure is gross..Ok for those that bought their places there for 50,0000 euros many moons ago
Just shows that even on one of the best Touristic complexes it doesn't really add up as a place to put your money.
last few 1 beds we've bought were: 120,000€, 125,000€, 117,000€ and 105,000€
last few 1 beds we've bought were: 120,000€, 125,000€, 117,000€ and 105,000€
ditto :)
... and even so jogger, 4.67 % gross return (7,000 pa on investment of 150,000) is not bad :)
Its been around a while ..well in theoryat least :wink:
The Rule of Law
(by Lord McCluskey)
We all use words or expressions like "democracy", "human rights" and "The Rule of Law". But it is not clear that we all share an agreed understanding of what they mean. Perhaps the least well understood is with the concept of "The Rule of Law".
We can properly say that we live under The Rule of Law if our State has a legal system which has the following essential characteristics:
[1] Knowing what the Law is:
The Law must be knowable: in other words, the content of the Law (both Criminal and Civil) must be published by the State in such a way that all citizens can discover what rights and responsibilities are given to, or imposed upon, them by the Law.
[2] Equality before the Law:
The Law must be applied equally to all citizens, to all juristic persons (e.g. companies) and to all public bodies and officials, including Ministers of the Executive.
[3] Access to Justice:
The citizens must be able to claim (assert and vindicate) their rights in independent Courts (or Tribunals). This requirement (along with #[1]) means that there must be a body of competent and independent lawyers, or at least paralegals, available to advise and represent citizens in understanding and pursuing their rights.
[4] Independent Judiciary:
The judges who decide all questions of rights in Courts and Tribunals must be independent and competent. To be "independent" the judges must have security of tenure: that means that no judge can be dismissed for the reason that the Government or other public non-judicial body regards his/her judicial decisions as unacceptable. Judges must not be able to be dismissed except for misconduct or unfitness: and the judgment as to whether or not any judge has been guilty of misconduct, or is unfit, must be made by a body of persons independent of Government. Judges must be properly paid to eliminate the risk of bribery. They must be trained and experienced in the application of the Law.
[5] Public Justice:
The Courts must be open to the public, including the Press. Judgments/Decisions in contested cases must be delivered in public and the judges must give reasons explaining their decisions. No person or agency of any kind can be allowed to make private representations to judges about the rights of citizens, except in accordance with published Rules of Court governing the procedures of the Courts.
[6] Challenging Executive action:
The actions, including the intended actions, of the Executive, of the police and of other public and private agencies must be able to be challenged and reviewed in the Courts on the basis that they are actions not authorised by the Law.
[7] Court decisions to be respected:
Once the Courts have delivered the final judgment in any litigation, the citizens and all agencies of the State affected by that decision are bound by it and must respect and act in accordance with it.
The above quote, while very admirable, is totally irrelevant as it is an opinion based on UK law.
The law under discussion on this thread is Canarian Law and you would be very foolish to base any argument against it on the opinion of an English Law experts opinion on UK law.
Peterrayner
30-01-2012, 17:25
The above quote, while very admirable, is totally irrelevant as it is an opinion based on UK law.
The law under discussion on this thread is Canarian Law and you would be very foolish to base any argument against it on the opinion of an English Law experts opinion on UK law. the EU
Its an opinion on the concept of the Rule of Law which IIRC is entirely recognised through the EU courts
under the various treaties of the Union.
I am NOT arguing against the 1995 Law in the slightest just that it must be presented equally to ALL.
Hope thats clear. :)
delderek
30-01-2012, 17:34
ditto :)
... and even so jogger, 4.67 % gross return (7,000 pa on investment of 150,000) is not bad :)
But you can get 3.6%, via internet instant access account, or 4.7% 2 year bond. No risk, No hassle. So would still say with property prices dropping for the foreseable future. Not a good investment.
But it is being applied equally to all citizens.
If you own a property on a Touristic complex, under the 1995 act you can rent it out as a holiday let as long as you do it within the rules laid down in the act.
If you own a property on a Residential complex, it is illegal to rent it out as a holiday let under any circumstances.
It couldn't be simpler, less ambiguous or clearer.
golf birdie
30-01-2012, 17:41
But you can get 3.6%, via internet instant access account, or 4.7% 2 year bond. No risk, No hassle. So would still say with property prices dropping for the foreseable future. Not a good investment.
plus if I was in the market I would wait and buy on the shiney new tourist complexes which will sping up any day now:)
I can see where Peters coming from as both touristic and residential complexes have doors and windows it's very confusing
x
Added after 5 minutes:
plus if I was in the market I would wait and buy on the shiney new tourist complexes which will sping up any day now:)
Not any day now but they have already started to sort out the planning for El Mojon which will be mostly if not all touristic
golf birdie
30-01-2012, 18:02
[I]
Not any day now but they have already started to sort out the planning for El Mojon which will be mostly if not all touristic
if the past is anything to go by I will have my money ready for 2052:laugh:
delderek
30-01-2012, 18:02
plus if I was in the market I would wait and buy on the shiney new tourist complexes which will sping up any day now:)
Not unless the Canarian moratorium on building any new tourist accomodation (except 5 star hotels) is reversed.
if the past is anything to go by I will have my money ready for 2052:laugh:
The roads have been finished for 6 years or so and most of the infrastructure. It would be private independant constructors that would build.
Not unless the Canarian moratorium on building any new tourist accomodation (except 5 star hotels) is reversed.
Under revision this year
golf birdie
30-01-2012, 18:16
The roads have been finished for 6 years or so and most of the infrastructure. It would be private independant constructors that would build.
well good luck with finding people to pump money into this during the worst depression in living memory. Says it all when the roads and infrastructure have been there for 6 years and not one block laid.
if the past is anything to go by I will have my money ready for 2052:laugh:
well good luck with finding people to pump money into this during the worst depression in living memory. Says it all when the roads and infrastructure have been there for 6 years and not one block laid.
It wasn't for lack of money to be invested Birdie it was to do with it was impossible to build there and the Canarian moratorium - legallities - Which are beinging solved in the new Plan General de ordenanza de Arona some of the same legalities that made a once legal urbanization Parque de la Reina unauthorised.
They put a plan to rework years of lazy daisy local Governments to try and have a better legal route, lets not shoot them down for it.
jogger321
30-01-2012, 18:30
last few 1 beds we've bought were: 120,000€, 125,000€, 117,000€ and 105,000€
Dare I ask when Loaded?
golf birdie
30-01-2012, 18:34
, lets not shoot them down for it.
won't need me to shoot them down, they do pretty well by themselfs. Do they have plans to move the fair whilst at it as I'm quite sure most holiday makers would fancy a nights sleep.:laugh:
Peterrayner
30-01-2012, 18:37
But it is being applied equally to all citizens.
If you own a property on a Touristic complex, under the 1995 act you can rent it out as a holiday let as long as you do it within the rules laid down in the act.
If you own a property on a Residential complex, it is illegal to rent it out as a holiday let under any circumstances.
It couldn't be simpler, less ambiguous or clearer.
Sigh :) You can twist it anyway you want but they were both breaking the same law at the same time. One was offered a get out and the other was not.
Sigh :) You can twist it anyway you want but they were both breaking the same law at the same time. One was offered a get out and the other was not.
Peter they are both the same if you only read what you want to
Imagine the outcry if they say here 15 days to sort out your paperwork,
It would be all over the papers couple gets 15 days to sort out paperwork that can't be obtained
Dare I ask when Loaded?
Dec 2010... June 2011....sept 2011 and nov 2011
Added after 2 minutes:
As I say it was a good year!
golf birdie
30-01-2012, 20:32
wonder how the hotels will feel about having 100's of legal apartments built on their doorstep. If this all started because the hotels were empty surely that will happen again:) Also I know of one Los cristianos hotel owner who is very well in with the politicans, I'm sure he will be having his say:)
Sigh :) You can twist it anyway you want but they were both breaking the same law at the same time. One was offered a get out and the other was not.
Yes !!
Because there is a get out for letting on a touristic complex - it's legal as long as you let within the guidelines laid out in the law; there is no get out for letting on a residential complex - the law quite clearly states that holiday lets in residential complexes are ILLEGAL
If you can't see that you need to talk to your solicitor
golf birdie
30-01-2012, 21:30
I can see what peter is saying, they both broke the law. Its not about fixing the law after its broken, it like being done for tax evasion, just because you pay it back does not mean you get off. Can you imagine being done for illegal taxi runs and getting off because you were putting the papers in next month:whistle:
I can see what peter is saying, they both broke the law. Its not about fixing the law after its broken, it like being done for tax evasion, just because you pay it back does not mean you get off. Can you imagine being done for illegal taxi runs and getting off because you were putting the papers in next month:whistle:
It isn't like that at all Golf Birdie. It's exactly how Bobmac said it was.
I can see what peter is saying, they both broke the law. Its not about fixing the law after its broken, it like being done for tax evasion, just because you pay it back does not mean you get off. Can you imagine being done for illegal taxi runs and getting off because you were putting the papers in next month:whistle:
It isn't the same though; there is no way to legalise holiday letting on a residential complex - IT'S ILLEGAL ( PLAIN and SIMPLE )
wonder how the hotels will feel about having 100's of legal apartments built on their doorstep. If this all started because the hotels were empty surely that will happen again:) Also I know of one Los cristianos hotel owner who is very well in with the politicans, I'm sure he will be having his say:)
One minute there's not enough apartments the next there will be too many
golf birdie
30-01-2012, 21:35
It isn't like that at all Golf Birdie..
is :raspberry:
is :raspberry:
It that your new signature?
golf birdie
30-01-2012, 21:39
One minute there's not enough apartments the next there will be too many
to me theres plenty of apartments at the moment, just been classed wrong due to politicions:raspberry:
It that your new signature?
yes :raspberry:
to me theres plenty of apartments at the moment, just been classed wrong due to politicions:raspberry:
Yet again most weren't designed for tourists in the first place hence the allocated activity. Based on a few misconceptions in your last few posts things being different than they aactually are, the roads and infrastructure have been there for 6 years and not one block laid had anything to do with the worst depression in living memory.
Would you agree that you've possibly invented a perspective that isn't 100% correct?
Yet again most weren't designed for tourists in the first place hence the allocated activity. Based on a few misconceptions in your last few posts things being different than they aactually are, the roads and infrastructure have been there for 6 years and not one block laid had anything to do with the worst depression in living memory.
Would you agree that you've possibly invented a perspective that isn't 100% correct?
That is at the heart of the problem though. The situation is that despite you saying that the complex's were not designed for tourists, they have ended up being rented out to tourists. This has been to the great benefit of the canary economy. It doesnot matter to the restuarant owners in los cristianos whether their customers are staying in a complex designed for tourists , not designed for tourists or sleeping in bus shelters. The important thing is that there are plenty of customers to serve food to and so they can earn a living.
Its like the case of the atlantida, fully touristic, fully designed for tourists, sadly now closed for 2 years. Just up the road is el mirador, not designed for tourists , but has been accomodating them since it was built.
As Senor Escobedo says ,the lawyer, on his website, the private renters in the canaries add up to the equivalent of 30 hotels. It is completely incredible that the canary government has not done its sums on this issue and realised that the private renters are a large and important part of the canary tourist economy. They need to stop working solely with the hotel lobby, this is simply not in the wider interest of the canary economy. All these apartments need to be registered, like the portugese model, and paying an annual fee to the canary government.
The attempt by the canary government to regulate tourism and protect their hotels, has created a complete mess up. The private renters have evolved to satisfy the extra tourists that the canary government did not consider. Thus the resorts got much needed business and growth these past years.
Its the same the world over when governments try to plan economies they make a complete mess up.
Tenerife as you say has a large unregistered tourism sector - "Had" up until now after 16 years of it being illegal they whip you and you don't like it
Why didn't you try Portugal?
I want a regulated tourism sector in Tenerife and the Canary Islands
I want Inspections on every apartment, house or hotel that tourists use
I want harmonised standards
I want a Professional,Safe and Hygiene tourism sector
I don't want tax evading people getting a free apartment in residential complexes especially mine
Finally the problem of lazy daisyness is being looked at
For the long term good of the Canary Islands
Peterrayner
31-01-2012, 16:56
I don't want tax evading people getting a free apartment in residential complexes especially mine
Finally the problem of lazy daisyness is being looked at
For the long term good of the Canary Islands
Tax Avoiding is an assumption and we all know what assumptions make.
Long Term Good is also an assumption.
I guess we will all have to wait for the eventual outcome of this mess.................:wink:
The only mess i see is the way people twist and turn the clear
Peterrayner
31-01-2012, 17:12
The only mess i see is the way people twist and turn the clear
This situation including the 1995 Law is has clear as mud my friend and you know it... so do the lawyers......:wink:
The Lawyer are after your money and so is the Government but you Peter will not get fined as you only rent/loan to friend and family
But if you did get fined it would be your own fault
They need to stop working solely with the hotel lobby, this is simply not in the wider interest of the canary economy. All these apartments need to be registered, like the portugese model, and paying an annual fee to the canary government.
For pities sake Nelson - change the bloody record about the Portuguese model.
If it's so good why did you buy a property in the Canaries.
I repeat again, it doesn't matter a sod what happens anywhere else in the world with holiday letting, CANARIAN LAW governs what happens in Tenerife and lays down the penalties which are applied if you break the law.
Peterrayner
31-01-2012, 18:37
The Lawyer are after your money and so is the Government but you Peter will not get fined as you only rent/loan to friend and family
But if you did get fined it would be your own fault
Bought first apartment 1 bedroom no mortgage (70K) late 2003 on a timeshare complex being sold off.
Developers and Estate Agents said would retain its touristic licence and an existing agency with 24 hour reception etc on the adjoining phase who was retaining ownership of a number of the apartments for holiday lets.The agency owner was also the Community President of our phase and given the licence and the complex predated the 1995 law we were ok to rent out.
1 year later and a new president and committee notified all the owners that the tourisitc licence no longer exisited and the complex was declared as Residential and that only family and friend use was allowed. This was stated in writing and confrmed at an AGM by the Administrator.
So we continued for another 12 months using it for family and friends but then decided after purchasing a 2 bed off plan 50% mortgage we would long term let the 1 bed apartment and the income would cover most costs on both and we let the 2 bed on a family and friends basis after again confirming at an AGM with the Administrators that this was legal providing we declared any income.
So we appointed Marcos Cabrera as Gestor and they confirmed again that the long term let on the 1 bed was legal and we have declared all income and paid all dues. They also advised that the family and friends use was legal but we couldnt take a commercial rental but could accept a reasonable "contribution" towards our costs and expenses PROVIDING this use was limited to a year, their advice was say 1 week a month would be acceptable, but anymore could be deemed as commercial expoitation and we could then be liable.
We also had taken a website ad for the 1 bed in 2004 on the basis that tthe comple x was registered and legal but closed the ad in 2005 ( or we thought we had but more on that later)
2006 We took a web site ad for the 2 bed but no weekly rental stated or availability calander published ( on the advice of our administrator) which we ran till late 2007 when for personal reasons we wanted to have a much greater use ourselves which was out every 6 weeks for several weeks or a month occassionaly then back home for 6 weeks etc.
So we closed the website completely but briefly reinstated it in May 2010 but closed it again in late July 2010 on advice from a friend who was also a letting agent on another complex who had been notified that websites were declared illegal advertising in breech of the 1995 law.
This was confirmed later that year around October my another friend, who was a very experienced ex estate agent, and we also noted the announcment in December 2010 that the Cabildo were appointing 17 additional inspectors and were to commence fines for illegal exploitations based on web advertising.
So you might see how I think this situation is far from clear. So far it seems we have avoided being in breech of the laws...........touch wood.
Imagine my horror then to discover recently that our original website posted 2004 with a UK based web provider and closed in 2005had been lifted by another web provider (without our knowledge) and posted on their website.
This only came to light because the agent still running the legal touristic phase next door to our 1 bed contacted me to ask if I was renting out and could we accommodate one of their long standing clients who they couldnt accommodate this summer due to then being in huge demand as a tourisitc site. :)
I declined and contacted the website which is very small and obscure who confirmed they had posted our details in 2004 based on information abstracted for the original site. I threatened them with legal action oif they didnt immediately remove the details completely which they did and sent an email confirming that we hadnt athorised or paid for this ad.
I can also prove with signed rental contracts that the apartment has been on long term rental since 2006 and that all income from this source has been declared.
Yes if I get fined I will accept that it is my liability but so far so good but I am still very nervous about the whole issue and I would certainly be lodging a strong appeal.
For pities sake Nelson - change the bloody record about the Portuguese model.
If it's so good why did you buy a property in the Canaries.
I repeat again, it doesn't matter a sod what happens anywhere else in the world with holiday letting, CANARIAN LAW governs what happens in Tenerife and lays down the penalties which are applied if you break the law.
And one day when it suits them Canarian Politicians will change the law and allow unregulated letting everywhere
This is what politicians do !!!
And everyone will scream and shout all over again
Peterrayner
31-01-2012, 18:40
And one day when it suits them Canarian Politicians will change the law and allow unregulated letting everywhere
This is what politicians do !!!
And everyone will scream and shout all over again
that would not surprise me at all :)
As long as the dudes pay up now thats cool with me
And one day when it suits them Canarian Politicians will change the law and allow unregulated letting everywhere
This is what politicians do !!!
And everyone will scream and shout all over again
They will have to do something to sort out this can of worms, but if people like Nelson get their way, all the people who specifically bought on residential complexes because they don't want to holiday let will create merry hell because they've changed the law so that it is stacked against them and I suspect there might be more of them than there are of the Nelsons of this world.
Peterrayner
31-01-2012, 19:04
As long as the dudes pay up now thats cool with me
I can see this dragging on for a long time yet based on the performance of the Tourismo to date.
Still only very limited responses to the early appeals lodged in June 2011 and of those some are definately outside the stated 6 months deadline which may by crucial if they every get to court.
I also seems that taking the appealants to court will in itself be a lengthy process and not cheap. A single action against an appealant would mean the goverment lodging 7000e with the courts for legal and notary costs and if they take 1 owner to court the they will have to take them all. So the total [potential costs could be huge.
A more likely scenario is several lengthy appeals perhaps over the next few years until the fine is reduced to a more "realisitc" level which owners could pay.
I wonder if the old saying...a bird in the hand is worth 2 in the bush...tranlsates into Spanish. :) but I stress this is just a personal opinion. :)
Added after 5 minutes:
They will have to do something to sort out this can of worms, but if people like Nelson get their way, all the people who specifically bought on residential complexes because they don't want to holiday let will create merry hell because they've changed the law so that it is stacked against them and I suspect there might be more of them than there are of the Nelsons of this world.
I suspect that might be the case on truely residentail areas outisde the more normal touristic areas (and I mean that as opposed to licence designations) say Calelo Salvage Parque la Riena or Chayofa etc but I would doubt it is generally true in areas like Oasis del Sur or parts of PDLA and perhaps the Gold del Sur or Los Gigantes etc.
So you might see how I think this situation is far from clear. So far it seems we have avoided being in breech of the laws...........touch wood.
I've learnt to ask directly with the people responsible to find out the exact information when i want it, across the board.
As too many people seem to know and have all the information here especially when financially benefiting, i'm sure you'll agree...
If you had of asked Turismo directly you would have got the exact state of play and not some misguided/misinterpreted and one side sounding babble
Then you would have seen and understood from the beginning what you were getting into and how clear it is.
But thanks for explaning how it went for you x
Added after 5 minutes:
I also seems that taking the appealants to court will in itself be a lengthy process and not cheap. A single action against an appealant would mean the goverment lodging 7000e with the courts for legal and notary costs and if they take 1 owner to court the they will have to take them all. So the total [potential costs could be huge.
€7000 isn't much for a Government even if you multiply that by the first 100 apartments/people and then carry on
It'll be more like €2000 to get the movement off the ground no ?
As with most things in law, it only needs a case or two taken as far as the courts, and once the courts have ruled, the precident is then set for the future. If appeals are upheld by the courts then that will be that - conversly, if the courts uphold the fines even if adjusted slightly, then it can be taken as read that, subject to strong mittigating circumstances, all cases will result in much the same outcome.
Whilst it is often the case that law-makers have little common sense, I can't imagine the level of fines being thrown about would not have been discussed, even behind closed doors, with judges prior to the outset of them being issued. Given that Turismo are so ****-sure of their position in this, they may well have taken advice already.
Peterrayner
31-01-2012, 20:02
As with most things in law, it only needs a case or two taken as far as the courts, and once the courts have ruled, the precident is then set for the future. If appeals are upheld by the courts then that will be that - conversly, if the courts uphold the fines even if adjusted slightly, then it can be taken as read that, subject to strong mittigating circumstances, all cases will result in much the same outcome.
Whilst it is often the case that law-makers have little common sense, I can't imagine the level of fines being thrown about would not have been discussed, even behind closed doors, with judges prior to the outset of them being issued. Given that Turismo are so ****-sure of their position in this, they may well have taken advice already.
The Tourismo have their own top (in-house) lawyer I am told so he/she will have given an opinion but that all it is until it goes before a judge,
and the appealants lawyers are confident that the cases are not well founded ...but they would say that wouldnt they.
My own personal view is that for a first offence then a settlement "out of court" somethin nearer the minimum leve charge of 1500e ought to be a reasonable settlement with the ptoviso that on proof of a second charge then the case would be nearer the grave limit which IIRC is 30,000.
I think that the law should also clarify the situation with regard to legal family and friends use in clear laymans terms so that everyone knows where they stand.
I think the difficulty here is that whilst the people who have been fined are looking for an escape route via the appeals ( and I don't blame them ), the question has to be asked, "are they still carrying on renting out"?
I've seen a drop in availability but I haven't heard of anyone having their holiday apartment cancelled yet. I can only assume that if I had booked into one of Nelson's for instance, he will honour the booking? It's all so clouded that even the people who have been fined are thinking that they daren't miss out on business just in case it comes good in the end and to be honest I'd do the same in their position. In reality the same people could be fined time after time. Will owners really stop renting or will they just go underground?
I think the difficulty here is that whilst the people who have been fined are looking for an escape route via the appeals ( and I don't blame them ), the question has to be asked, "are they still carrying on renting out"?
I've seen a drop in availability but I haven't heard of anyone having their holiday apartment cancelled yet. I can only assume that if I had booked into one of Nelson's for instance, he will honour the booking? It's all so clouded that even the people who have been fined are thinking that they daren't miss out on business just in case it comes good in the end and to be honest I'd do the same in their position. In reality the same people could be fined time after time. Will owners really stop renting or will they just go underground?
Totally agree with your sentiment
I do however think that anyone who has already been caught and fined and is in the process of appealing against the fine would be very stupid to carry on letting until the situation has been clarified.
The Tourismo have their own top (in-house) lawyer I am told so he/she will have given an opinion but that all it is until it goes before a judge, and the appealants lawyers are confident that the cases are not well founded ...but they would say that wouldnt they.
My own personal view is that for a first offence then a settlement "out of court" somethin nearer the minimum leve charge of 1500e ought to be a reasonable settlement with the ptoviso that on proof of a second charge then the case would be nearer the grave limit which IIRC is 30,000.
I think that the law should also clarify the situation with regard to legal family and friends use in clear laymans terms so that everyone knows where they stand.
Don't forget who employs the Judges .......
Peterrayner
31-01-2012, 21:50
Don't forget who employs the Judges .......
are you suggesting appealants would not get a fair hearing ???
And one day when it suits them Canarian Politicians will change the law and allow unregulated letting everywhere
This is what politicians do !!!
And everyone will scream and shout all over again
yes you are quite right and I have already pointed this out a few times already. The canary government allowed private renting on residential complex,s for 15 years without a problem. The rights of the residential buyers were completely ignored as the government was clearly happy to get more guests into the resorts to benefit the canary economy.
This crackdown is not a crusade for the rights of residential owners who want to live without tourists, it is not a crusade to support legal 50 plus 1 complex,s with sole agents in place, it is simply the hotel lobby demanding a crackdown through their fears in the terrible crissis year of 2008.
One result from this affair could well be a return to none enforcement of the law with the silly law still in place , but left dormant as it was in the past.
I for one hope that we are seeing such an outcry that proper reform occurs and the apartment renters can get legal as they deserve to be.
Don't forget who employs the Judges .......
I think what people really need not to forget is that you are dealing with Civil not Common Law ... the basic difference being Judges having to follow the written word/law with much less discretion than Common Law judges: it really is quite a different system to what people from the UK and Ireland are used to.
Peterrayner
31-01-2012, 22:57
Sort it out Peter
Its a diifficult one.
My previous stance on the issue was based largely on the view that the 1995 Law was dormant and had never previously been enacted against a single property private residential owner and was perhaps maybe impossible to enforce without evidence.
What I failed to account for was the huge growth in the market afforded by the advent of internet advertising and at the same time the effects of La Crisis.
It seems this action isnt so much based on touristic exploitation but on illegal internet advertising.
Along came the economic crisis and the hotel lobby start screaming again only this time they can wave 100s of internet ads in the politicians faces who then cannot play dumb and they have to recognise the situation has changed rapidly in the past 2 - 3 years.
So they over react and issue THOUSANDS of fines when 1 or 2 dozen initial fines would have been sufficient to achieve the results they were looking for if we accept the outcome they are looking for is regularisation of the market
but being the cynic that I am I suspect that this isnt what its all about but rather that its a panic move to raise has much revenue as possible to replace the incomes lost now the property sales boom is over and which IMHO is likely to back fire badly.
I bought initially has a lifestyle choice and the second has a long term investment 10 - 15 year minimum.
Only 8 years into that plan so still time for things to turn around..everything is cyclical :wink:
thats assuming I can survive the triple whammy - economic crisis - exchange rate change - bereavement. :(
not looking for sympathy here but those ar the facts just trying to deal with things the best way I can.
I think what people really need not to forget is that you are dealing with Civil not Common Law ... the basic difference being Judges having to follow the written word/law with much less discretion than Common Law judges: it really is quite a different system to what people from the UK and Ireland are used to.
at the end of the day judges normally follow the politicians lead afterall the politicians directly or indirectly appoint the judges and in the long run the politicians get what they want
God the older I get the more cynical I become
cainaries
31-01-2012, 23:36
There is a rumour out here in hillbilly country of La Palma that IF new licences are issued the owner will never be allowed to stay in their own property. Anyone else heard this one or was it just the man at the Ayuntamiento winding me up again?
Santiago
31-01-2012, 23:43
There is a rumour out here in hillbilly country of La Palma that IF new licences are issued the owner will never be allowed to stay in their own property. Anyone else heard this one or was it just the man at the Ayuntamiento winding me up again?
Hope it was a wind up!
I think what people really need not to forget is that you are dealing with Civil not Common Law ... the basic difference being Judges having to follow the written word/law with much less discretion than Common Law judges: it really is quite a different system to what people from the UK and Ireland are used to.
Thanks Doreen
Some of us have been making this point from the start of the thread and we've been shouted down.
They might just take notice of you saying it.
My abogados who is handling one of the cases on your complex says the reason for the enforcment in his view is to raise money thats his view anyway the couple he is acting for rented through another party who put thhe apartment number ect on there web site they new nothing of the law preventing them holiday letting.
i was just thinking today how things have change over the last few years theres now less choice not only in holiday letting in residential complexes(which should not be happening anyway) also less choice in fully legal tourist complexes as a number have neen sold off and receptions closed ie surry sol,chipeqe and i think theres others too if i could only remember! the first 3-4 months of the year going to be difficult for those looking for 1 or 2 weeks in apartments if the number of inquires im getting has anything to do with it i dont have any free dates this year or next first 3 months of next year so just going to get harder. Whats the future who knows the complexes who used to be tourist complexes may find a way to be legal if the owners ever agree fat chance off that and just maybe if the hotel bookings pick up maybe they back off a bit or maybe the wont at the end of the day we need more apartments of a good standard and thats where they should concentrate the fines are to me excessive hopefully everyone will get them reduced on appeal. David
Its a diifficult one.
My previous stance on the issue was based largely on the view that the 1995 Law was dormant and had never previously been enacted against a single property private residential owner and was perhaps maybe impossible to enforce without evidence.
What I failed to account for was the huge growth in the market afforded by the advent of internet advertising and at the same time the effects of La Crisis.
It seems this action isnt so much based on touristic exploitation but on illegal internet advertising.
Along came the economic crisis and the hotel lobby start screaming again only this time they can wave 100s of internet ads in the politicians faces who then cannot play dumb and they have to recognise the situation has changed rapidly in the past 2 - 3 years.
So they over react and issue THOUSANDS of fines when 1 or 2 dozen initial fines would have been sufficient to achieve the results they were looking for if we accept the outcome they are looking for is regularisation of the market
but being the cynic that I am I suspect that this isnt what its all about but rather that its a panic move to raise has much revenue as possible to replace the incomes lost now the property sales boom is over and which IMHO is likely to back fire badly.
I bought initially has a lifestyle choice and the second has a long term investment 10 - 15 year minimum.
Only 8 years into that plan so still time for things to turn around..everything is cyclical :wink:
thats assuming I can survive the triple whammy - economic crisis - exchange rate change - bereavement. :(
not looking for sympathy here but those ar the facts just trying to deal with things the best way I can.
Peterrayner
01-02-2012, 00:51
Thanks Doreen
Some of us have been making this point from the start of the thread and we've been shouted down.
They might just take notice of you saying it.
Yes they might but IMO thats because Doreens contributions are made without even the faintest whiiff of schadenfreude :wink:
golf birdie
01-02-2012, 11:55
maybe one reason why have people gone off hotels is places like Paradise park asking for 1700 euros for 3 days. Yes, 1700 for 3 days this month.
There's a reason the price is 1700.... Where did you see it?
Added after 26 minutes:
I'll explain before I wait for the reply:
When hotels sign up with travel agents and tour operators such as booking.com then sometimes give the agents a contracted amount to sell for example 5 units.
The hotel still tries to sell the rooms too even though they should just let the agent do it - but they have to because If they don't they risk the agent not selling them and having rooms empty that they could have sold.
So when the are full but still "owe" the travel agent the allocated rooms they hike the price up to something ridiculous - ie 1700 euros - so that no one reserves the rooms - thus removing the risk of double booking.
That is at the heart of the problem though. The situation is that despite you saying that the complex's were not designed for tourists, they have ended up being rented out to tourists. This has been to the great benefit of the canary economy. It doesnot matter to the restuarant owners in los cristianos whether their customers are staying in a complex designed for tourists , not designed for tourists or sleeping in bus shelters. The important thing is that there are plenty of customers to serve food to and so they can earn a living.
Its like the case of the atlantida, fully touristic, fully designed for tourists, sadly now closed for 2 years. Just up the road is el mirador, not designed for tourists , but has been accomodating them since it was built.
As Senor Escobedo says ,the lawyer, on his website, the private renters in the canaries add up to the equivalent of 30 hotels. It is completely incredible that the canary government has not done its sums on this issue and realised that the private renters are a large and important part of the canary tourist economy. They need to stop working solely with the hotel lobby, this is simply not in the wider interest of the canary economy. All these apartments need to be registered, like the portugese model, and paying an annual fee to the canary government.
The attempt by the canary government to regulate tourism and protect their hotels, has created a complete mess up. The private renters have evolved to satisfy the extra tourists that the canary government did not consider. Thus the resorts got much needed business and growth these past years.
Its the same the world over when governments try to plan economies they make a complete mess up. Lots of paying customers for Sr.Escobedo then.
Surprising that nobody has posted yet, but today's news from the mainland is that the Government (Spanish not Canarian) has removed the subsidy for landing fees at all airports, including ours.
Monarch and others are already talking about reducing flights and as a result prices are bound to rise.
Effect on tourism generally in the short/medium term will undoubtedly be significant as flights get more expensive, and a strong indicator that there is unlikely to be much in the way of leniancy afforded to the private letters here by a Government who are having their life-blood cut off at source by the mainland
Lots of paying customers for Sr.Escobedo then.
As I said in an earlier post, it's a WIN - WIN situation if you're a lawyer, whatever happens - if they don't win the appeals they get paid, if they do win and the law is changed all the residential owners who object to tourists on their complexes will be creating merry hell about it, more money for the lawyers.
As I said in an earlier post, it's a WIN - WIN situation if you're a lawyer, whatever happens - if they don't win the appeals they get paid, if they do win and the law is changed all the residential owners who object to tourists on their complexes will be creating merry hell about it, more money for the lawyers.
What tourists - see above:whistle:
What tourists - see above:whistle:
The point I meant to make was the lawyers are the only people who are actually going to gain from this - whatever the outcome is
delderek
01-02-2012, 21:45
Surprising that nobody has posted yet, but today's news from the mainland is that the Government (Spanish not Canarian) has removed the subsidy for landing fees at all airports, including ours.
Monarch and others are already talking about reducing flights and as a result prices are bound to rise.
Effect on tourism generally in the short/medium term will undoubtedly be significant as flights get more expensive, and a strong indicator that there is unlikely to be much in the way of leniancy afforded to the private letters here by a Government who are having their life-blood cut off at source by the mainland
Maybe a little perspective required.
Depending on the size of the aircraft and timings landing fees vary from around 250.00 to 500 euros. So 2 or 3 euros on a ticket on a fairly full flight. Although I can see the argument for reducing flight frequency.
Peterrayner
01-02-2012, 21:58
Cprl. Del.
DONT PANIC !!!! DONT PANIC !!! :)
Maybe a little perspective required.
Depending on the size of the aircraft and timings landing fees vary from around 250.00 to 500 euros. So 2 or 3 euros on a ticket on a fairly full flight. Although I can see the argument for reducing flight frequency.
Missing the point though DD, there are no specific landing fees at the airports and have not been for 2 or 3 years now, one of the main reasons why RyanAir and others started coming here - with no subsidy at all it will cost considerably more to land - Monarch have already (within 24 hours) said they are going to reduce the number of flights - so have Jet2 and the Germans are looking again at routes they planned to open into the north.
The principle reason the islands have done so well in the past couple of years is pretty much down to the costs of landing here - before the fees were lifted a couple of years back, TFS was one of the most expensive places to land - with it becoming that again together with the reduction in acomodation it is not a rosy picture overall
Missing the point though DD, there are no specific landing fees at the airports and have not been for 2 or 3 years now, one of the main reasons why RyanAir and others started coming here - with no subsidy at all it will cost considerably more to land - Monarch have already (within 24 hours) said they are going to reduce the number of flights - so have Jet2 and the Germans are looking again at routes they planned to open into the north.
The principle reason the islands have done so well in the past couple of years is pretty much down to the costs of landing here - before the fees were lifted a couple of years back, TFS was one of the most expensive places to land - with it becoming that again together with the reduction in acomodation it is not a rosy picture overall
I think muppet is right here, this is not going to help tourism on the islands. I remember years back at the start of our renting , it was often possible to get people realyy interested in booking , but often cost of flights knocked them back. The last few years have been better for flights, especially for summer deals.
I would myself see this as more of a reason for the canary government to halt their attack on the private renters, by attacking the private renters they are damaging their own economy , now an unforeseen external event threatens to do further harm.
It is these sorts of unforseen events that always occur , that governments who try to plan economies can never allow for. The crackdown started as trhe hotels panicked in 2008. Then with the arab uprising disrupting N africa/Egypt tourism the canaries got an unexpected boost. Probabley the whole crackdown could have been abandoned had the hotels known that things would improve as they did.
Less flights from the likes of ryanair/monarch is going to impact on the private rental sector. The canary government should wake up to the enormity of the problem they are making for their economy, they should consider the " 30 hotels " worth of apartments that they are attacking.
golf birdie
02-02-2012, 11:46
it will add about 20-25€ per passenger.
I get the feeling it's already started!
I've just this minute booked flights for November from Manchester with Monarch. £280 pp. That's the most I've ever paid so maybe they've started to factor in the landing fees?
I don't think 20 euros would be the difference between people coming and not coming to Tenerife
I don't think 20 euros would be the difference between people coming and not coming to Tenerife
I agree, but when you put it together with the problem of not being able to stay where you really want to then it's certainly not going to help.
delderek
02-02-2012, 12:06
it will add about 20-25€ per passenger.
No it won't. 2 or 3 euros per person on a full flight, on a maximum landing fee of 500 euros, for a plane of 90 tonne mtow (85% of Tenerife flights)
golf birdie
02-02-2012, 12:10
I don't think 20 euros would be the difference between people coming and not coming to Tenerife
I have seen folk walk a mile to save a euro so I would not be too sure.
No it won't. 2 or 3 euros per person on a full flight, on a maximum landing fee of 500 euros, for a plane of 90 tonne mtow (85% of Tenerife flights)
but airlines don't work that way.
delderek
02-02-2012, 12:19
I have seen folk walk a mile to save a euro so I would not be too sure.
but airlines don't work that way.
Agreed,, they are all con artists, did anyone notice a reduction in prices when the landing fees were reduced to zero a couple of years ago:whistle:
Depends what it is - I saw a guy complaining in Iceland that his €1.40 pork pie said "2 for £1.50" and was going berserk that he'd been charged 2.80 for pork pies.......
I think when you're talking about booking a holiday, 20 euros is neither here nor there - and if it does scare off a few pork pie merchants, the economy won't be missing much
Agreed,, they are all con artists, did anyone notice a reduction in prices when the landing fees were reduced to zero a couple of years ago:whistle:
Not on the day - no, but progressively certainly -
golf birdie
02-02-2012, 12:28
I don't think 20 euros would be the difference between people coming and not coming to Tenerife
look at it another way, with the cost of apartments going up due to the clamp down, say 100 euros a week plus 20 euros on the flight a family of 4 looking for a 2 weeks holiday would be down 280 euros. That could be the difference in a holiday or no holiday.
delderek
02-02-2012, 12:35
look at it another way, with the cost of apartments going up due to the clamp down, say 100 euros a week plus 20 euros on the flight a family of 4 looking for a 2 weeks holiday would be down 280 euros. That could be the difference in a holiday or no holiday.
Don't think you should ever become a financial advisor,, if less people fly, then apartment rentals will reduce in price. (Think we are going to be moved to off topic soon)
golf birdie
02-02-2012, 12:37
Don't think you should ever become a financial advisor,, if less people fly, then apartment rentals will reduce in price. (Think we are going to be moved to off topic soon)
we are about the only two on topic :crylaughing:
Don't think you should ever become a financial advisor,, if less people fly, then apartment rentals will reduce in price. (Think we are going to be moved to off topic soon)
Simple rule of economics here - if the number of renters fall and the running costs are the same, you need to put the price up to cover the running costs; the only way the price would fall is if the number of renters drops would require your running costs to fall as well.
I get the feeling it's already started!
I've just this minute booked flights for November from Manchester with Monarch. £280 pp. That's the most I've ever paid so maybe they've started to factor in the landing fees?
another point here , the low cost carriers get advance bookings. You book online and get your plane seats booked. I would say most private apartment renters pencil their apartment booking and then take a few days to get the very best flight deal. Only then do they confirm the apartment booking. Ryanair monarch would normally have a good idea of advance tourists due to all the advance bookings. clearly some plane seats fill up much later but it could be with the crackdown on private renting that the airlines are already seeing a significant downturn in bookings. They may be aware of the crackdown in the canaries and it may be that they are starting to see a massive downturn in the normal pattern of bookings.
You can not attack "30 hotels" worth of apartment beds, and npt see a big fall off in planes seats needed.
delderek
02-02-2012, 12:49
Simple rule of economics here - if the number of renters fall and the running costs are the same, you need to put the price up to cover the running costs; the only way the price would fall is if the number of renters drops would require your running costs to fall as well.
Agreed, but in a falling market, what you need to do, and what you have to do to survive, are miles apart.
I get the feeling it's already started!
I've just this minute booked flights for November from Manchester with Monarch. £280 pp. That's the most I've ever paid so maybe they've started to factor in the landing fees?
I've just checked Gatwick with Easyjet for June half term - Sat to Sat £477.98, Sun Sun £436.98 return PP
delderek
02-02-2012, 13:42
£104.98 return Easyjet, Late April-Early May from Gatwick. Don't think we are proving anything with these examples, of High and Low fares.
bonitatime
02-02-2012, 13:51
I've just checked Gatwick with Easyjet for June half term - Sat to Sat £477.98, Sun Sun £436.98 return PP
This dependa On who bought flights recently the calculation for flight prices going up and down is really complicated. Always clear your cache memory before you search. I booked flights yesterday to Madrid which were cheaper than last week an November and December
I really don't think anyone could sway me away fro Tenerife but there are plenty that would be put off just by the trouble you have to go to to get in. I stay on a legal complex and have done for 20 years. I'd still want to stay there if it was illegal because I'm comfortable with it.
With regard to my November trip, I had to book the apartment nearly a year in advance otherwise risk not being able to stay there. I see bookings beyond 2013 and I don't just mean peak times. Loaded I'm sure you've seen this happening.
I had to make my booking with absolutely no idea how much the flights would cost and I'm the sort of person who's prepared to risk that. Many aren't.
I'm sure Nelson knows some of his clients personally and both parties will be disappointed by the fact that he can no longer let to them. I know I would be. Los Cris is full of repeat holidaymakers who now won't be able to have what they want, when they want. Now I know some of you will just say "boo hoo" in jest but the reality is that it's showing Tenerife in a negative light. How can that be good for business?
Who says the cost off apartments are going up would be silly in this economic climate to put prices up hard enough to get current prices im not puting mine up the price on our complex on most of the private apartments rented through the onsite agents has stayed at £245and £250 per week since 2004 at least and if one of them intended put them up i would know maybe loaded will tell us if he intends to put up prices because of the clamp down but i doubt he would for that reason. David
ste
I really don't think anyone could sway me away fro Tenerife but there are plenty that would be put off just by the trouble you have to go to to get in. I stay on a legal complex and have done for 20 years. I'd still want to stay there if it was illegal because I'm comfortable with it.
With regard to my November trip, I had to book the apartment nearly a year in advance otherwise risk not being able to stay there. I see bookings beyond 2013 and I don't just mean peak times. Loaded I'm sure you've seen this happening.
I had to make my booking with absolutely no idea how much the flights would cost and I'm the sort of person who's prepared to risk that. Many aren't.
I'm sure Nelson knows some of his clients personally and both parties will be disappointed by the fact that he can no longer let to them. I know I would be. Los Cris is full of repeat holidaymakers who now won't be able to have what they want, when they want. Now I know some of you will just say "boo hoo" in jest but the reality is that it's showing Tenerife in a negative light. How can that be good for business?
you are quite right in what you say. The canary government crackdown is way beyond just bad for business. Given the high level of unemployment in the canaries , and especially amongst the young, the whole crackdown is in my opinion criminally insane.
As I posted way back, family and friends will help a little in the winter months , but without the internet ads private apartments can not sustain summer bookings. Many of our guests are well known to us over many years, but spring summer we normally would get lots of new customers and even fill some weeks with late deal special offers.
This crackdown as it starts to destroy the canary tourist economy, is going to end up being written about like when Idi Amin expelled his entire asian business class at a stroke in the 70's, this killed of the mad dictators economy instantley.
£104.98 return Easyjet, Late April-Early May from Gatwick. Don't think we are proving anything with these examples, of High and Low fares.
As my wife works in a school, we are stuck to school holidays. We are booked for Tenerife at Easter and our flights at Easter were only £261 PP return from Gatwick with Easyjet, so I am comparing like for like as the June half term is the next school holiday. I agree that outside school holidays the prices are lower but for lots of people that is not an option at the moment - they have to take their holidays to tie in with school holiday dates.
Incidentally, Ryan air from Stansted are up by a similar ratio.
Who says the cost off apartments are going up would be silly in this economic climate to put prices up hard enough to get current prices im not puting mine up the price on our complex on most of the private apartments rented through the onsite agents has stayed at £245and £250 per week since 2004 at least and if one of them intended put them up i would know maybe loaded will tell us if he intends to put up prices because of the clamp down but i doubt he would for that reason. David
No we haven't put our prices up because of the crack down- we have put our prices up because we've had a fantastic years and demand is high , plus we have added a lot of value to the apartments by extra things as standard and we've modernised a lot of apartments in the last few years which have gone down really well with the customers.
And if we can sustain this level of business (which our projects suggest we will be) then we plan to increase the payments to owners in 2013 by around 7%.
Surprising that nobody has posted yet, but today's news from the mainland is that the Government (Spanish not Canarian) has removed the subsidy for landing fees at all airports, including ours.
Can you provide a link to this thanks.
Can you provide a link to this thanks.
Not a great translation from yesterday's paper ... http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=es&u=http://www.laprovincia.es/economia/2012/02/01/ejecutivo-regional-afirma-bonificacion-aerea-creo-70-nuevas-rutas-islas-exterior/435372.html&ei=B58qT9eDGIXRhAeWyvH9Cg&sa=X&oi=translate&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CEQQ7gEwAQ&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dsoria%2Baereas%2Brebaja%26hl%3Den%26c lient%3Dfirefox-a%26hs%3DxAe%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26prmd%3Dimvns
Hard to believe it is a Canarian, Soria, who has brought in this measure :( Jet2 and Monarch already saying they will reduce flights as a result.
jogger321
02-02-2012, 17:47
Not a great translation from yesterday's paper ... http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=es&u=http://www.laprovincia.es/economia/2012/02/01/ejecutivo-regional-afirma-bonificacion-aerea-creo-70-nuevas-rutas-islas-exterior/435372.html&ei=B58qT9eDGIXRhAeWyvH9Cg&sa=X&oi=translate&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CEQQ7gEwAQ&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dsoria%2Baereas%2Brebaja%26hl%3Den%26c lient%3Dfirefox-a%26hs%3DxAe%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26prmd%3Dimvns
Hard to believe it is a Canarian, Soria, who has brought in this measure :( Jet2 and Monarch already saying they will reduce flights as a result.
Perhaps this "bonus" was not passed on in reduced air fares but pocketed by the airlines in increasing the margin?
welshman
02-02-2012, 22:41
How many un employed on Island :crazy: What are these people doing iand in the present climate:crazy::crazy::crazy: Like our goverment we did not support our manufacturing Industry and relied on the banks to make money. Look what happened the countries broke. What else have the canaries got other than tourists?? Bananas!!!! any oil any where been found??
Not a great translation from yesterday's paper ... http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=es&u=http://www.laprovincia.es/economia/2012/02/01/ejecutivo-regional-afirma-bonificacion-aerea-creo-70-nuevas-rutas-islas-exterior/435372.html&ei=B58qT9eDGIXRhAeWyvH9Cg&sa=X&oi=translate&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CEQQ7gEwAQ&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dsoria%2Baereas%2Brebaja%26hl%3Den%26c lient%3Dfirefox-a%26hs%3DxAe%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26prmd%3Dimvns
Hard to believe it is a Canarian, Soria, who has brought in this measure :( Jet2 and Monarch already saying they will reduce flights as a result.
Thanks. And a link to Jet2 and Monarch already saying they will reduce flights as a result?
delderek
03-02-2012, 12:56
Thanks. And a link to Jet2 and Monarch already saying they will reduce flights as a result?
Jet2 have today denied they are reducing flights.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.4 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.