View Full Version : The Tenerife illegal lettings thread
The farce is strong with this one
You've searched your feelings, you know it to be true!
Han Solos advice to Nelson: "let inconspicuously , but don't LOOK like you're trying to let inconspicuously"
Hans Solo to the rescue, he´s just published an article in the Tenerife News:
Canarian letting law breaches European Rules - see Bolkestein Directive
No fines to be paid !
Carry on letting !
Carry on advertising !
2 year amnesty during which no action will be taken against owners who rent in breach of the new law !
Let the force be with you !!
got to give it to nelson, if he were a boxer, you would never knock him out lol. or maybe he is a samurai "death before disonhour"
- - - - - - - - - - merged double post - - - - - - - - - -
got to give it to nelson, if he were a boxer, you would never knock him out lol. or maybe he is a samurai "death before disonhour"
- - - - - - - - - - merged double post - - - - - - - - - -
got to give it to nelson, if he were a boxer, you would never knock him out lol. or maybe he is a samurai "death before disonhour"
- - - - - - - - - - merged double post - - - - - - - - - -
Hans Solo to the rescue, he´s just published an article in the Tenerife News:
Canarian letting law breaches European Rules - see Bolkestein Directive
No fines to be paid !
Carry on letting !
Carry on advertising !
2 year amnesty during which no action will be taken against owners who rent in breach of the new law !
Let the force be with you !!
Ha ha I've been waiting for this article to be officially published....... A few holes in it to say the least.
I was emailed this today - I think this is what has been published in the paper:
RENTING YOUR PROPERTY TO TOURISTS –
IMPORTANT UPDATE AFFECTING OWNERS
(with thanks to John Hatrick, Tenerife Solicitors, Puerto Colon)
N.B. This article deals with rentals on TOURIST-designated complexes. It does NOT deal with the issue of rentals of apartments on ‘RESIDENTIAL’ complexes. The writer considers that the law on residential complex rentals is crystal clear, namely that short-term tourist rentals on a residential complex are NOT permitted under any circumstances.
Over the past few months, we have been contacted by numerous worried clients seeking information regarding developments in the dispute over the rental of apartments on tourist-designated complexes.
Most readers will be aware of the flurry of activity last year, where inspectors from the tourist board carried out a number of impromptu inspection visits in respect of tourist properties believed to have been rented out without using the designated sole agent. Some of those visits resulted in the issue of penalty sanction notices.
Despite ‘rumours’ as to an increase in the number of roaming inspectors, evidence suggests that most, if not all, of those visits were carried out by the same two male inspectors. It is also interesting to note that the parties who received visits were predominantly independent rental agents or owners of multiple properties.
In each case brought to our attention, we understand that the inspectors tried to take a heavy-handed approach and intimidate the parties that they visited, particularly if those parties mentioned that they wished to speak to a lawyer before cooperating further.
Given that the tourist board did almost nothing to enforce the tourist rental law for over a decade but has suddenly jumped into action in the middle of a recession, the writer’s view is that last year’s ‘flurry of activity’ by the inspectors was nothing more than a desperate attempt by the government to increase revenue.
The inspectors apparently carpet-bombed the biggest agents and owner-groups with demands for details of property owners. Then, if the agent caved in and released such confidential information, the tourist office issued penalty fine notices to as many of those agents/owners as possible. No doubt the tourist office hoped that a reasonable percentage would either pay up out of fear, or at least pay something after haggling the fine with the inspectors.
Fortunately, most parties who received such visits or notifications were not intimidated and instead instructed solicitors to fight the notices. Of the numerous cases that Tenerife Solicitors took on last year, not a single client has paid a cent in fines to the tourist board. For each appeal that we filed, the tourist board has so far failed to respond with their intention to proceed within the requisite 6 month deadline. Hence all such cases to date that have reached the said 6 month deadline have been dropped by the tourist board.
Further good news for owners is that it has apparently been several months since the inspectors have initiated any new visits or penalty notices in respect of tourist complex accommodation in Tenerife. The initiative against tourist rentals appears to have been quietly dropped, or at least scaled back significantly.
Meanwhile, on 7th February 2013 a meeting took place between the Ministry of Tourism and key tourism figures. During that meeting, the Deputy Minister for Tourism reported that a new law applicable to tourist rentals was being proposed. However, so far, we have been unable to obtain any details as to the proposed changes to the law or its proposed date of inception.
The Deputy Minister also clarified that once the new law comes into effect, owners will in any event be granted a 2 year amnesty in order to become compliant, during which period no action will be taken against owners who rent in breach of the new law.
In the meantime, property owners will also be relieved to learn that the first three court cases brought against owners by the tourist board that have reached the TSJC (High Court of the Canary Islands) have been thrown out by the Judges on the basis that the Canarian rental law (7/1995) is in breach of European Law, specifically something called the ‘Bolkestein Directive’. This is a relatively new provision which seeks to remove local or national restrictions on trade and open up trade markets across all European countries. The Directive is not without its critics and is due to be reviewed by the European Parliament in June 2013, but for now, it remains in effect and even after the June 2013 review, is unlikely to be entirely abolished.
Pending further updates or clarification as to the proposed new rental law, the existing requirement to rent only via a complex’s sole rental agent is currently illegal and unenforceable. Hence, any owner who is currently renting their property privately via the internet or via an independent agent may continue to do so and should not be bullied into using the sole agent. As such, in the unlikely event that any owner now receives a fine or inspection request, he or she should immediately instruct a solicitor to appeal it.
The above commentary is a discussion of the relevant legal issues and does not amount to legal advice. Each owner’s circumstances are unique and must be considered individually on their facts.
Tenerife Solicitors can be contacted on 922 717845 or by email at info@tenerifesolicitors.com
I the same email Monday . When I get on a pc I'll explain why it's totally flawed logic
Altamira
14-03-2013, 12:00
Altamira AGM Altamira held its AGM on the 8th March, the Altamira lawyer attended to give advice on the existing 1995 tourist laws and give an opinion on the proposed new tourist laws.
1995 tourist laws, the lawyer advised owners to comply with the existing laws. Advising on the rules relating to the sole agent, negotiations and changes if there was a demand for an alternative sole agent.
Proposed new tourist laws, as expected we will all need wait and see what the final wording & interpretation will mean. However the lawyer was of the opinion that the laws could not force anyone to rent out their apartment, in other words an owner would be allowed to use it for residential purposes.
From this article we take the folowing:
1. This article deals with rentals on TOURIST-designated complexes
What are "tourist designated complexes" ? Presumably both "Tourist compelexes with an active license" (toursit complexes) and "Former tourist complexes who no longer have an active license" (Dormant touristic).
2. The writer considers that the law on residential complex rentals is crystal clear, namely that short-term tourist rentals on a residential complex are NOT permitted under any circumstances.
Ok so anyone on complexes built as residential who have never had a license are illegal.
3. Tenerife Solicitors have been contacted by worried owners.
No doubt.
4. inspectors from the tourist board carried out a number of impromptu inspection visits in respect of tourist properties believed to have been rented out without using the designated sole agent. Some of those visits resulted in the issue of penalty sanction notices.
Agreed.
5. evidence suggests that most, if not all, of those visits were carried out by the same two male inspectors. It is also interesting to note that the parties who received visits were predominantly independent rental agents or owners of multiple properties.
Why is it releveant or even interesting that it was the same 2 inspectors?
6. The inspectors apparently carpet-bombed the biggest agents and owner-groups with demands for details of property owners.
We already knew about this a long time ago - so agreed.
7. Fortunately, most parties who received such visits or notifications were not intimidated and instead instructed solicitors to fight the notices. Of the numerous cases that Tenerife Solicitors took on last year, not a single client has paid a cent in fines to the tourist board. For each appeal that we filed, the tourist board has so far failed to respond with their intention to proceed within the requisite 6 month deadline. Hence all such cases to date that have reached the said 6 month deadline have been dropped by the tourist board.
Evidence? Link to boletin saying they're dropped??????
Also why has Janet ********, who's usually hot on this subject not reported similar results with the clients represented by ALOTCA lawyers?
8. Further good news for owners is that it has apparently been several months since the inspectors have initiated any new visits or penalty notices in respect of tourist complex accommodation in Tenerife. The initiative against tourist rentals appears to have been quietly dropped, or at least scaled back significantly.
certainly not as many as before but they do still appear in the boletins - perhaps the inspectors have wound it down or perhaps there are much less people advertising their illegal properties?
9. Meanwhile, on 7th February 2013 a meeting took place between the Ministry of Tourism and key tourism figures. During that meeting, the Deputy Minister for Tourism reported that a new law applicable to tourist rentals was being proposed. However, so far, we have been unable to obtain any details as to the proposed changes to the law or its proposed date of inception.
The details ofthe proposed new laws are available already on Janet ********* website and the government website.
But who are these "key tourism figures" ? Hardly Nelson etc, more likely Konrad etc - it would be interesting to know who was at the meeting and with what agenda - It's unlikely that Konrad would be trying to find a way to put himself out of business, and its even less likely that anyone who would want the law changed would be invited or regarded as a "key tourism figures".
10. The Deputy Minister also clarified that once the new law comes into effect, owners will in any event be granted a 2 year amnesty in order to become compliant, during which period no action will be taken against owners who rent in breach of the new law.
I thought in the previous point the author said: "we have been unable to obtain any details as to the proposed changes to the law"
11. In the meantime, property owners will also be relieved to learn that the first three court cases brought against owners by the tourist board that have reached the TSJC (High Court of the Canary Islands) have been thrown out by the Judges on the basis that the Canarian rental law (7/1995) is in breach of European Law, specifically something called the ‘Bolkestein Directive’. This is a relatively new provision which seeks to remove local or national restrictions on trade and open up trade markets across all European countries. The Directive is not without its critics and is due to be reviewed by the European Parliament in June 2013, but for now, it remains in effect and even after the June 2013 review, is unlikely to be entirely abolished.
Which part of Bolkenstein? Link?????????
12. Pending further updates or clarification as to the proposed new rental law, the existing requirement to rent only via a complex’s sole rental agent is currently illegal and unenforceable. Hence, any owner who is currently renting their property privately via the internet or via an independent agent may continue to do so and should not be bullied into using the sole agent. As such, in the unlikely event that any owner now receives a fine or inspection request, he or she should immediately instruct a solicitor to appeal it.
So owners on a tourist complex with a sole agent can do it legally themsleves without the sole agent? Please explain how these owners can register their properties with the tourist board independently of the sole agent?
Answer: they can't.
And owners on a tourist complex without a license holder (dormant touristic) can let too? Again, how do these owners register their properties? They can't.
13. The above commentary is a discussion of the relevant legal issues and does not amount to legal advice. Each owner’s circumstances are unique and must be considered individually on their facts.
Definitley don't take it as legal advice, it seems more like a compilation of old information and unfounded new claims that aren't backed up with any external confirmation.
And even more questionable, why hasn't Jose Escobedo been shouting from the rooftops that the first cases have been thrown out of court ?
So much for ALOTCA.
What does the press do here if it doesn't report these cases ?
"????????????
Having just read the previous post, the fact that the high court has rejected the cases brought up, yes it certainly does throw up the question of an apartment having to be registered with a sole agent or even the tourist board. Maybe this recent ruling will force turismo back to their drawing board and come up with a solution that involves ALL owners, whether or not they go through a sole agent.
Fivepence
14-03-2013, 12:53
JA has now re-posted her article with more detail.
Judging by JAs new info this leaves the apartment owner in the exact same position as before.
junglejim
14-03-2013, 14:13
Altamira AGM Altamira held its AGM on the 8th March, the Altamira lawyer attended to give advice on the existing 1995 tourist laws and give an opinion on the proposed new tourist laws.
1995 tourist laws, the lawyer advised owners to comply with the existing laws. Advising on the rules relating to the sole agent, negotiations and changes if there was a demand for an alternative sole agent.
Proposed new tourist laws, as expected we will all need wait and see what the final wording & interpretation will mean. However the lawyer was of the opinion that the laws could not force anyone to rent out their apartment, in other words an owner would be allowed to use it for residential purposes.
Thanks Altimira for comments -did anyone ask the question of his professional contact with Konrad ?
Our AGM was a couple of weeks ago - our President has been "negotiating" a revival of our dormant licence since last AGM -not one comment was made by him on our progress with this , nor one question asked by the people attending the AGM !
I deliberately chose not to ask any questions just to see what was going to happen - the most important issue to affect our community in decades and no-one was prepared to ask a question !
I don´t rent my apartment so the main issue won´t affect me - some of the peripheral rumours might but that will be upto the politicians but it was disappointing that nobody else was asking questions!
They are happy getting their rentals through the President and no questions asked !
Altamira
14-03-2013, 17:11
Hello Junglejim
I think it is important to mention that some Altamira board members made a special request for the Altamira lawyer to attend and advise on the illegal rental issues, I think a previous response from Foz answered that question about the lawyer.
However I can say that the Altamira lawyer did not shy away from any questions from Altamira owners and he appeared to be fair minded in relation to the hot issues surrounding the need to have a user friendly sole agent.
The meeting was also attended by an independant agent who was representing a number of owners, the agent was requesting a change in the sole agent method of management.
welshman
14-03-2013, 21:21
And even more questionable, why hasn't Jose Escobedo been shouting from the rooftops that the first cases have been thrown out of court ?
So much for ALOTCA.
What does the press do here if it doesn't report these cases ?
"????????????
Having just read the previous post, the fact that the high court has rejected the cases brought up, yes it certainly does throw up the question of an apartment having to be registered with a sole agent or even the tourist board. Maybe this recent ruling will force turismo back to their drawing board and come up with a solution that involves ALL owners, whether or not they go through a sole agent.
Things are now all in the melting pot be interesting couple of months, back to the drawing board. Perhaps the Portugal way is not dead yet for tourist complex,s. Liecence them, control, improve, give the punter what he wants and recover taxes.
Things are now all in the melting pot be interesting couple of months, back to the drawing board. Perhaps the Portugal way is not dead yet for tourist complex,s. Liecence them, control, improve, give the punter what he wants and recover taxes.
It's the El Alamein moment
Fivepence
14-03-2013, 22:04
It's the El Alamein moment
or The Battle of the Bulge...............................ing pockets. :whistle:
It doesn't matter how many brown envelopes are passed now, it's down to interpretation of European law which trumps local canarian or national spanish law, and about time too. (IMO)
Should anyone have the inclination to try and read some relevant articles on this Bolkestein Directive, they may come to the conclusion that its the result of some crazy thinking. If so, how ironic that one crazy law cancels out another to restore common sense !
Fivepence
15-03-2013, 01:48
Any links ?
This is it 9PLUS if you can be bothered reading it ...................Link (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2006:376:0036:0068:en:PDF)
This is it 9PLUS if you can be bothered reading it ...................Link (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2006:376:0036:0068:en:PDF)
Great thanks can you point me to the part/s that refer to this subject.
junglejim
15-03-2013, 09:59
Great thanks can you point me to the part/s that refer to this subject.
I´ll save you the bother,DON´T you´ll lose an hour of your life that you´ll never get back !
http://img171.imageshack.us/img171/7106/220pxbolkestein.gif (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/171/220pxbolkestein.gif/)
Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)
Sole agents throughout Europe unite !
http://img171.imageshack.us/img171/7106/220pxbolkestein.gif (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/171/220pxbolkestein.gif/)
Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)[/QUOTE]
Sole agents throughout Europe unite !
http://img171.imageshack.us/img171/7106/220pxbolkestein.gif (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/171/220pxbolkestein.gif/)
Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)[/QUOTE]
are the three blokes in the green sherlock homes hats loaded, muppet and oasis ? or is 9 plus there too, nice to put a face to a name
My face is in my profile pic and has been for a year or so, surprised you'd not spotted that already?
My face is in my profile pic and has been for a year or so, surprised you'd not spotted that already?
It's on his dartboard at home...:laugh:
My face is in my profile pic and has been for a year or so, surprised you'd not spotted that already?
sorry pal, thought it could not be los cristo , poor weather with the matching green kagoles
sorry pal, thought it could not be los cristo , poor weather with the matching green kagoles
You should have been here 2 weeks ago!
Looking at JAs website on this subject it seems she is saying that Tenerife Solicitors article is at best over exageration/ over optimistic.....
she raises 4 points really;
1. The prosecutions proof seem to be based on print outs of adverts as we already know and this looks like it won't be enough to prove guilt - I can totally see where they're coming from because Lupain Holiday Rentals have been listing my name on their website for years despite me continually saying I don't want to advertise with them. The point being its hard to get taken off websites once you're on them and they could always argue this as their case - even if they're lying through their teeth.
2. Because if the above it seems the inspectors have changed tactics and are now knocking on doors claiming to be doing interviews and customer questionaires - this directly contradicts Tenerife Solicitors article whereby they said the inspections were scaled back significantly - almost saying to owners "go on its safe now".
3. While it appears the Bolkenstein Directive is having some effect on SOME court cases RELATED to the illegal lettings saga she is stressing that it is not relating to individual owners cases but rather to agents who may have been fined. It isn't clear either from JA's article or Tenerife Solicitors article as to what effect, if any the Bolkenstein Directive will have on existing or future cases but loks like it won't be of any help to owners.
4. The "2 years grace" part of the new law has also been misinterpreted accord to Janet Ans..... again, no clear interpretation yet but reading between the lines it will more likely be more red tape for existing tourist cmplexes to have to get through rather than an happy hour for private owners.
Fivepence
15-03-2013, 17:18
I hope I don't get crucified for this post but here goes.
Well 9PLUS believe it or not, I have just wasted a part of my life and read the Directive.
As you would expect with documents of this nature it is loaded with gobbly gook and unnecessary repetitive rubbish.
I am not a lawyer, nor blessed with high intelligence, just a bog standard layman.
However, from the bits that I do understand I think that the Canarian Government have spied a chance here to intentionally make it difficult for private owners to let their apartments themselves.
Nowhere in the document does it mention ‘sole agents’ but it does say that governments should establish a one point of contact for providers and clients in each respective service area.
Having read the document , I understood this to mean a section in the national or local government that is responsible for each service area. In the case of apartment rental this could mean to create a database of properties for rental that owners would need to register with the authority.
Relevant information held on the database would be:
The owner
The complex/address
The type of apartment/classification
The current tariff
Contact number for maintenance/owner
The property would have to be re-registered annually and each year for safety reasons the owner would need to provide certificates of compliance and safety for the electrical installation and appliances as well as the gas installation and appliances.
I would think an annual charge would accompany the registration.
This is just my view having read the Directive but documents like this are open to a multitude of different interpretations.
Having took the time to read the Directive and give my opinion, I fully realise how meaningless it is because the only relevant view is the one the Canarian Government apply.
I do not and have never owned a property on the island.
Give me a minute to put my tin hat on.
Well done for taking the time to read it - I flicked through and couldn't stay awake ............
I think its important to stress that no where in the Bolkenstein Directive does it get as specific as what you've laid out above, which part of the BD dd you interpret that specific bit from?
Fivepence
15-03-2013, 17:31
You are correct Loaded and as I stated above it is just my opinion.............which is irrelevant.
However, the following are extracts from the Directive: -
(90) Contractual relations between the provider and the client as well as between an employer and employee should not be subject to this Directive. The applicable law regarding the contractual or non contractual obligations of the provider should be determined by the rules of private international law.
(110) It should not be possible for Member States to circumvent the rules laid down in this Directive, including the provision on the freedom to provide services, by conducting checks, inspections or investigations which are discriminatory or disproportionate.
GENERAL PROVISIONS
5. This Directive does not affect Member States’ rules of criminal law. However, Member States may not restrict the freedom to provide services by applying criminal law provisions which specifically regulate or affect access to or exercise of a service activity in circumvention of the rules laid down in this Directive.
Scope
3. This Directive shall not apply to the field of taxation.
Requirements prohibited or subject to evaluation
Article 14
Prohibited requirements
3) restrictions on the freedom of a provider to choose between a principal or a secondary establishment, in particular an obligation on the provider to have its principal establishment in their territory, or restrictions on the freedom to choose between establishment in the form of an agency, branch or subsidiary
there is no need for argument about the latest news. One key fact is that the first three cases to reach the canarian high court have been thrown out by the judges because the canary law is in breach of current eu law.
As Tony m posted, why was that not news in the press and why are alotca not broadcasting that. The lawyer who has written the article has clearly done a sound job and has attacked this matter to the correct target, this nonsense was always clearly in breach of europeon standards on free markets , consumer choice etc.
what would be useful on this thread now would be detail about the three cases which have been thrown out by the canarian high court.
The real world and commonsense are marching forward, as I have consistantly posted here, that was always going to be the eventual outcome of this pantomime, and as I said just a couple of days ago,
people will be suprised just how quickly this nonsense is sorted out in our favour, but the whole problem was so insane and ridiculous it could never have been vindicated at euro law level if well argued against by quality lawyers.
This is not an amazing impossible victory that has been achieved, it could never have ended any other way.
Nelson no one is arguing about the latest knews , we are discussing it.
i think you'll findthe facts outsoon enough but as already mentioned on JAs website this doesn't look like it will help private owners just yet as the Tenerife News article purports to do.
The court cases that have been affected look like they affect agents rather than owners but again, we will have to wait and see.
loaded with gobbly gook and unnecessary repetitive rubbish.
Bet you wouldn't say that to his face
seanocelt
15-03-2013, 19:05
Ha Ha nice one 9plus. As an "early" poster on this thread who has steadfastly refused to belive any "news" on here, the only facts i personally know are; 1/ a friend got a huge, gigantic, whopping fine causing stress and fear. 2/ Said friend's lawyer(s) have given conflicting views whilst trousering big fees and doing the sum total of nowt. 3/ Nobody has paid the fines but one person has put their's in "escrow" for Tourismo (good luck ever seeing that again) 4/ many owners are re-letting thinking(hoping) it has all gone away.5/ this thread keeps repeating hopes and dreams for some, fears for others but after 2 years or so no clear steer. As always, good luck to those affected, its a rediculous farce , typically Canarian.
junglejim
15-03-2013, 19:16
Nice Sean ,meanwhile they are in a waiting queue to get into our place as the President trousers his "Fee" !
You have to wait until someone dies in our place to get a decent booking!
What´s disappointing is the almost total lack of reporting of facts in the press hereon the issue , whether it´s good or bad !
Nelson no one is arguing about the latest knews , we are discussing it.
i think you'll findthe facts outsoon enough but as already mentioned on JAs website this doesn't look like it will help private owners just yet as the Tenerife News article purports to do.
The court cases that have been affected look like they affect agents rather than owners but again, we will have to wait and see.
just read the latest post on the ja site. seems to me that despite tony m and cim clear posting of the dramatic implications of the eu law, Ja is getting very muddled.
She is still talking about the new canary draft law and what implications that may or may not have.
She is not actually engaging the latest news at all, tony m has gone on her site and talked about it, but her focus appears to be still the mad new draft law.
well if tony m is correct the old 1995 and any new draft law with the same requirements is illegal under current eu law. The tenerife legal lawyer has hit the right target, bullseye.
The old law is dead , the new draft is dead, long live freedom and commonsense.
I suppose this will me mean a decline in the fees for the alotca lawyers who were fighting the many fine cases. The tenerife legal lawyer has stopped the nonsense dead in its tracks, because he has taken the matter to the right level.
He hasn't stopped nonsense at all and if your posts are anything to go by he's perpetuated it.
I think you'll find the new draft law is the law that John Hatrick of tenerife solicitors is referring to.
Janet seems to be putting the information she has available across as well as she can by clearly she is having to bight her tongue and be careful with what she does day or fear of misinterpretation and wild speculation.
junglejim
15-03-2013, 21:05
Oh dear! I've just been fora meal and one of our owner & illegal renters has just come up to me quoting the "excellent article" in the Tenerife News and howit´s the end of the issue !
I had to disappoint him by telling otherwise and to wait until summer before buying any champagne - his eyes glazed over when I mentioned Bolkenstein - hadn´t a clue !
It´s almost like Easter and who touched My Garment!
"Hanging on in quiet desperation is the English way "- Time Pink Floyd , "The Lunatics are on the grass !" - Brain Damage
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHS1-IAdrl8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sy8iUI_ayuo
He hasn't stopped nonsense at all and if your posts are anything to go by he's perpetuated it.
I think you'll find the new draft law is the law that John Hatrick of tenerife solicitors is referring to.
Janet seems to be putting the information she has available across as well as she can by clearly she is having to bight her tongue and be careful with what she does day or fear of misinterpretation and wild speculation.
You won't find any of that on here..:laugh:
To be fair the Tenerife legal lawyer does also speak about the new draft law, that's where the 2 year no fine period comes from.
But he of course speaks about the eu ruling, that's why the first 3 canary cases have been thrown out by the Canarian high court.
So junglejims illegal rented is correct , it is all over . The eu law as it stands makes compulsory sole agency illegal .
In that context the outcome of the new draft law in June is now a complete none event.
Junglejims illegal renter friend has no worries as long as the eu law remains.
junglejim
15-03-2013, 21:37
Well it is Comic Relief Night - Red Noses or Faces all round methinks !
Or more like Laughing Gnomes !
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mWoT9elA-oY
Jungle Jim : pink Floyd are one of the best bands ever for me and "hanging on in quiet desperation" my favorite of their lyrics .... Also feels like some on here are banging their head against a WALL
Can we just hijack this tread to say : be sure to donate to Red Nose Day !!!!!!
They accept pay pal and cards, even Nelson can afford a fiver - come on guys !
seanocelt
16-03-2013, 03:05
Oh dear! I've just been fora meal and one of our owner & illegal renters has just come up to me quoting the "excellent article" in the Tenerife News and howit´s the end of the issue !
I had to disappoint him by telling otherwise and to wait until summer before buying any champagne - his eyes glazed over when I mentioned Bolkenstein - hadn´t a clue !
It´s almost like Easter and who touched My Garment!
"Hanging on in quiet desperation is the English way "- Time Pink Floyd , "The Lunatics are on the grass !" - Brain Damage
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHS1-IAdrl8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sy8iUI_ayuo
The Brit-Press over here astound me, have for 17 years, banner headlines then report "facts" that are way behind the current sitch, never giving a toss that some fools believe every word. No conscience, no ethics.
essexeddie
16-03-2013, 17:39
Anybody seen the entry in the 'Tenerife News' this week [15th to 28th/3]
Page 17. Written by a solicitor.
Stating that
"the existing requirement to rent only via a complex sole agent is illegal and unenforcable" and a lot more.
Well that going to put the cat amonst the pigeons:wink2:
Fivepence
16-03-2013, 17:51
Anybody seen the entry in the 'Tenerife News' this week [15th to 28th/3]
Page 17. Written by a solicitor.
Stating that
"the existing requirement to rent only via a complex sole agent is illegal and unenforcable" and a lot more.
Well that going to put the cat amonst the pigeons:wink2:
Discussed on this thread Eddie. http://www.tenerifeforum.org/tenerife-forum/showthread.php?23-The-Tenerife-illegal-lettings-thread
essexeddie
16-03-2013, 18:11
Thought so, I was'nt sure where it was, can it be transfered?
odd that he was the only person to know it ? - so whats changed in the past couple of weeks/months to make this significant change.
Interesting he also says carry on as normal if you are renting on the internet but if you do get hit with a fine etc hire a solicitor and get them to appeal against it
Just below this comment is his (solicitors) companies phone number and email address ! Nothing like drumming up business.
odd that he was the only person to know it ? - so whats changed in the past couple of weeks/months to make this significant change.
Interesting he also says carry on as normal if you are renting on the internet but if you do get hit with a fine etc hire a solicitor and get them to appeal against it
Just below this comment is his (solicitors) companies phone number and email address ! Nothing like drumming up business.
The article says that the first three illegal letting cases to reach the Canarian high court have been thrown out by the judges. The reason being that the 1995 law has been ruled to be in breach of euro law.
Therefore if you own an apartment on a touristic complex you don't have to use the sole agent if you don't want to . You can use any agent you want or rent your apartment yourself.
It's very welcome and encouraging news for a great many people
- - - - - - - - - - merged double post - - - - - - - - - -
What has happened is the first cases have reached the Canarian high court and this lawyer has been able to show that the 1995 letting law is in breach of euro law, we have all had to wait for that to happen
It is indeed interesting news and I suspect not as simple and clear cut as some posters have made out and it appears that these Court judgements are still being considered in detail.
Loved to know where you get that from Nelson......
As tf1 says the author is the only person who has interpreted the latest news in that way, other commentators have not come to the same conclusion at all.
If you look at the bottom of the article it also says "this is not legal advice" so maybe best to research a little more before lapping up a dodgy headline.
If you don't need to use the sole agent how do you register your apartment ? Answer : you can't.
I think Nelson got very giddy there - sex wee?
Loved to know where you get that from Nelson......
As tf1 says the author is the only person who has interpreted the latest news in that way, other commentators have not come to the same conclusion at all.
If you look at the bottom of the article it also says "this is not legal advice" so maybe best to research a little more before lapping up a dodgy headline.
If you don't need to use the sole agent how do you register your apartment ? Answer : you can't.
You would assume the author is correct that the Canarian court dismissed the cases due to a breach in European rules.
I cant imagine a lawyer putting his reputation on the line on such a platform if he wasn´t sure of the facts.
OK so they related to touristic apartments. Perhaps the fines relating to other situations have still to be tested.
Nothing in the European laws I have read so far even mentions touristic or residential, but there are plenty of rules relating to the freedom of competition, easy access for a provider of services (in this case owner or agent ) obtaining authorisation to trade.
In fact, if Nelson wants to register his apartment, I´d suggest to go to Turismo with the list of things they must provide so he can apply. Piece of p**s really.
Id love to see how that panned out!
The boots now completely on the other foot loaded . The requirement for compulsory sole agent use is illegal under euro law, fact. It's not for me to worry about registration , the canary govt have got to step into the real world and sort out a registration system that is compliant with euro law.
When they do that I will gladly engage with that . We don't need to concern ourselves with the legal requirements of the 1995 law , on touristics it's as dead as month pythons parrot.
You are wasting your time trying to nail it back on its perch
- - - - - - - - - - merged double post - - - - - - - - - -
The winds of change have blown and a change has come
You would assume the author is correct that the Canarian court dismissed the cases due to a breach in European rules.
I cant imagine a lawyer putting his reputation on the line on such a platform if he wasn´t sure of the facts.
OK so they related to touristic apartments. Perhaps the fines relating to other situations have still to be tested.
Nothing in the European laws I have read so far even mentions touristic or residential, but there are plenty of rules relating to the freedom of competition, easy access for a provider of services (in this case owner or agent ) obtaining authorisation to trade.
In fact, if Nelson wants to register his apartment, I´d suggest to go to Turismo with the list of things they must provide so he can apply. Piece of p**s really.
You can't imagine a "lawyer" putting his reputation on the line??? I suspect this guy is another in a long line of "professionals" who arrive on the island knowing very little if anything about anything and proceed to give us all the benefit of their lack of knowledge.Time will tell but putting out this kind of information does little more that annoy the Spanish professionals and get the public even more confused.He will no doubt end up following his predecesors and leave the island when he realises that you can fool some of the people some of the time but.............!
Where are you "facts" Nelson? So far there isn't any concrete evidence to back up your claims - you're just grasping at the straws of uncertainty.
All you have is one lawyers opinion of what "might" happen soon which is already contradicted by the lawyers who have handled the vast majority of the cases.
Saying "fact" after a sentence does not make it instantly believable .
Where are you "facts" Nelson? So far there isn't any concrete evidence to back up your claims - you're just grasping at the straws of uncertainty.
All you have is one lawyers opinion of what "might" happen soon which is already contradicted by the lawyers who have handled the vast majority of the cases.
Saying "fact" after a sentence does not make it instantly believable .
The facts are as Tenerife news has published and tony m has posted. The first three illegal letting cases to go to the Canarian high court have been thrown out by the judges because they the 1995 law is illegal under euro law.
Basically it goes against euro wide freedom, for client and renter. You know simple stuff like wot I've been posting for 2 years, if someone can rent a place in Ireland on their own , then should be able to do same on Tenerife, otherwise it's just not cricket.
If the news of this as published is real and not a hoax , then that's that loaded, end of the road for sole agency .
I know it's not what you wanted/ expected , but that's what has happened
Wait and see Nelson don't jump to conclusions.
just the issue of your tax dodge now to tackle then.....................innit
Also found this :
Implementation of the Directive Bolkestein in Spain
Squire Sanders
Spain
February 5 2009
Squire Sanders logo
In this article we address the current situation and the measures being taken by the Spanish Government to implement the Bolkestein directive. On 18 October 2008 the Spanish Government submitted a draft law on Free Access and the exercise of service activities (also known as the “Umbrella Law”).
The draft law is based on the principles of freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services. This is reflected by its elimination of administrative authorisations and the prohibition of restrictions, limiting them to cases where they are necessary, proportionate, not discriminatory and can be justified by a reason of general interest. Reasons of general interest cannot be those related to economic policy. Similarly, the draft law is designed to strengthen the rights and protection of consumers and users. It also imposes more restrictions on service providers as to how they can use customer information.
The draft law also establishes the concept of a “single portal” in an attempt to simplify administration and provide a source where citizen can obtain information and arrange at distance by internet the establishment of services in any country within the European Union. This will be possible at all different Spanish administrative levels (state, autonomous regions and local), excluding those formalities which require approval in person, and will provide for Public Bodies accepting documents from other member states without the necessity to provide original documents, certified copies or sworn translations, except in cases provided for in Community legislation, or those that can be justified on grounds of public order and safety.
In this way as a general rule, administrative silence, that is failure to receive a reply from the relevant administrative body, will constitute approval of an application to provide services.
The number of authorisations may only be limited where justified by a scarcity of administrative resources or for technical reasons. In relation to time limits, authorisations will be granted for an undefined period being able to be limited in duration provided that they are renewed automatically, the number of authorisations is limited for that there exists a reason for general interest. Authorisations will permit the service provider to enter and exercise their service throughout Spain, with limitations to this being only justifiable on grounds of public order, the environment, public safety or public health, and in this case only when proportionate and not discriminatory.
In relation to cooperation between different public bodies, for the effective control of service providers, it is essential that providers supply the authorities with certain information needed to monitor compliance with the national legislation. This information will include that necessary to facilitate a warning mechanism to alert the competent authorities to acts causing serious prejudice to the recipients of the services.
It is also worth mentioning that this law seeks to improve the quality of services provided, eliminate unjustified restrictions on multidisciplinary service provision and prevent service providers from being obliged to exercise a single activity exclusively.
Finally it is important to note that, as set out in the Second Final Resolution, any competent public bodies who fail to comply with the requirements of this draft law will assume responsibility for those actions attributable to it, and cause Spain to be sanctioned by the European Institutions.
Alongside the draft law referred to, at the end of October 2008 the Spanish Ministry of Trade “Ministerio de Comercio” referred a preliminary draft of a draft law to reform commercial retail, the “Proyecto de Ley de Reforma de la Ley de Ordenación de Comercio Minoritario” 7/96, in which modification of commercial regulation is sought in order to comply with the Bolkestein Directive.
Since Tony Hatricks article directly quoted Bolkestein as the reason for the failure of the fines standing up, perhaps this simpler explanation gives the reason in a less wordy manner.
i.e. a service provider being exclusive (read sole agent ) NOT allowed under EU law.
How is tony Hatrick,John?
http://www.laopinion.es/canarias/2013/02/09/juzgados-tumban-autorizacion-previa-alojamientos-turisticos/458882.html
I found this article regarding the effect bolkestien is having on the cases and it appears to be that the requirement of "advance authorization" (or previous authorization) of businesses is what has been the stumbling block with the governments cases.
In the canaries before you start doing business you're meant to ask for permission and because none of the companies who have been fined will have had any authorization to begin trading in the way they were or are, they got fined.
Still a lot more info to squeeze out from this whole thing.
In addition, before permission is even sought, the governing body should have an internet portal that is concise and easy to understand and in simple terms, outlining the method and stages necessary to obtain authorisation. there must also be a reasonable time scale given, which if not adhered to by the "competent authority" the applicant can assume authority is granted !
so.................how about.......no internet portal....no need to apply ! in fact....where do you apply to ?
The first lot of fines were done on the basis that the culprits were letting "sin autorizacion previa" - without prior authorization ...... Bolkestein seems to have trumped that by saying people don't need to ask before starting something - essentially a way of speeding up start up businesses and cutting red tape.
But remember the fines started to change in what they were fining the owners for, it changed to "not having inspection book or sign about complaints forms etc".
This says to me that - and many on here back when this was noticed - that the Canarian government knew they were on dodgy ground with the offenses they'd pinned on the first lot.
So the interesting thing now will be to see if bolkestein is successful in preventing :
1. All of the initial cases.
2. Not just agents but owners too.
3. The cases with the altered infractions.
Time will tell of course but i dont think this will affect sole agents (wishful thinking I hear you say)...... The reason is that the bolkestein directive may allow agents to not have to ask before initiating an activity but they still have to follow the rest of the laws set out which include :
All properties must be registered with the tourist board and sign a doc giving c company express permission to let their property .
Those properties must be registered Via a sole agent.
Sole agent must have 50%+1.
Then there's everything else relating to standards inside properties and in the communal areas which would be impossible financially for individual owners .
I might be wrong but bolkestein might just have got them off because of the way the government tried to hang them, the sheep might be safe but the lambs?????
Angusjim
17-03-2013, 10:16
Wait and see Nelson don't jump to conclusions.
Maybe you should heed your own advice:wink:
In addition, before permission is even sought, the governing body should have an internet portal that is concise and easy to understand and in simple terms, outlining the method and stages necessary to obtain authorisation. there must also be a reasonable time scale given, which if not adhered to by the "competent authority" the applicant can assume authority is granted !
so.................how about.......no internet portal....no need to apply ! in fact....where do you apply to ?
It's like I told loaded Yesday in plain Yorkshire none legal language, the boots on the other foot now. When the govt provide a clear and legal mechanism to register me I will engage with that.
It's clearly not for me to do anything, they must now provide an easy to use Internet portal.
Let em get half the inspectors on that one, they have clearly wasted 2 years wages on them all, money. That could have paid for lifeguards, hospitals, and chemists supplies.
Then the quicker they sort the portal the quicker they get my annual permit money to pay a few of their bills once I am registered.
After that though the hunter becomes the hunted. My legal claim for costs and damages against them begins, my legal bills and lost rentals due to my stopping advertising will have to be paid plus interest .
Happy days
well it looks as if its not as straightforward as many thought it was going to be
could this be one of the reasons the government took so long to implement their law in the first place and finally only went ahead under intense pressure from the hotel lobby hoping owners would just roll over and follow the law like a lot of sheep
golf birdie
17-03-2013, 10:37
well after 2 years of most on here slagging Nelson off it seems he was not far off the mark all the time:lol:
As for the fines for no complaints book, I can see that being laughed out of court as well as the fines should be for running an illegal business not for not having some document you can't apply for. Typical Canarian shambles that just makes the lawyers rich.
Altamira
17-03-2013, 10:39
It's like I told loaded Yesday in plain Yorkshire none legal language, the boots on the other foot now. When the govt provide a clear and legal mechanism to register me I will engage with that.
It's clearly not for me to do anything, they must now provide an easy to use Internet portal.
Let em get half the inspectors on that one, they have clearly wasted 2 years wages on them all, money. That could have paid for lifeguards, hospitals, and chemists supplies.
Then the quicker they sort the portal the quicker they get my annual permit money to pay a few of their bills once I am registered.
After that though the hunter becomes the hunted. My legal claim for costs and damages against them begins, my legal bills and lost rentals due to my stopping advertising will have to be paid plus interest .
Happy days
Interest Hello Nelson, only time will tell if the situation is ultimately going in your favour, if so may I suggest charging the Canary Government 20% interest, I am sure they would think it is reasonable after all that is what they were going to charge the so called illegal renters.
Time will tell as to "who's right or who's wrong"..... If that's what its all been about.
Nelson's idea of how things should be done here has always been perfectly reasonable if it wasn't for the fact that tenerife isn't Portugal .
My comments have always been based on the laws that are in place here - if they change the laws then all I can do is read up on any new laws and adapt. It doesn't make me wrong to have followed a law does it?
If and when the law changes and there's a way out for owners like Nelson then fair play everyone gets on with it - until then it's business as usual.
All of the above taken as read, the perhaps most crucial aspect of all this is the relationship of the Canary Islands with the EU and just to emphasis the point, not Spain's relationship with the EU - that of these islands and the handful of other areas which are also outside the EU for some issues and inside for others.
Was it not the Peripheral Status of the islands, granted to them by the EU which allowed the European Courts to recognised the economic importance of tourism to the islands and "approved" the 1995 legislation in the first instance?
It is true to say that the EU are pretty good and passing laws and issuing their directives, but I do not recall them having issued more laws and directives toward the Peripheral States which effectively withdraws the "special status" granted to here and the others who benefit from special provisions and certain exemptions. If they had, I think we would have noticed - the single most noticable example would have been the abolition of IGIC and the introduction of VAT or IVA here.
Whilst sympathy for those who were duped by unscrupulous estate agents over the years abounds, I really think our Nellie is getting far too excited, far too soon.
JA's summary appears to be pretty accurate, as ever. Yes it is true that the "evidence" collected by the inspectors at first would seem to have been ruled out as being sufficient in a court of law (screen dumps of letting adverts), but as Loaded and others have pointed out, there was a change of tactic very early on toward complaint books and forms etc., probably, for all any of us know, on the back of legal advice and legal advice which would have come from the EU istelf.
Equally, I do not read into this what Nellie wants to read into this about some form of 2 year Amnesty?? From what I can see the proposal is a period of 2 years "grace" to allow restoration of touristic licences where necessary. Nowhere do I read that all letters who have fallen foul of the laws as they currently stand are permitted to carry on letting, nor do I read that the latest court decisions mean that the revisions in Parliament at the moment are illegal before they are even passed.
I think the writer of that article, and those who have a rather flowery outlook on life are likely to be sorely dissapointed in due course.
It's like I told loaded Yesday in plain Yorkshire none legal language, the boots on the other foot now. When the govt provide a clear and legal mechanism to register me I will engage with that.
It's clearly not for me to do anything, they must now provide an easy to use Internet portal.
Let em get half the inspectors on that one, they have clearly wasted 2 years wages on them all, money. That could have paid for lifeguards, hospitals, and chemists supplies.
Then the quicker they sort the portal the quicker they get my annual permit money to pay a few of their bills once I am registered.
After that though the hunter becomes the hunted. My legal claim for costs and damages against them begins, my legal bills and lost rentals due to my stopping advertising will have to be paid plus interest .
Happy days
That could have paid for lifeguards, hospitals, and chemists supplies.
pfft
Such a lot of confused sole agents and supporters when confronted by plain and simple facts.
Firstly the 2 year period of grace is part of the new canary draft tourism law. They appear to be showing some decency in giving dormant touristics two years to come up with a sole agent etc. but we can forget all about that because the 1995 letting laws are in clear breach of euro law in any event.
Clearly the later fines for not having complaint forms and notices are just as illegal, remember the govt has not provided the simple to use Internet portal to enable individuals to register . The govt in effect has prevented registration and the forms thereafter .
As I have always said on here , ultra peripherals are fine, but you would need to show that this was important to make tourism so much better.
The thing is as many of us have been saying, individual renters do a better job than most sole agents, high standard accommodation that is very popular with the consumer .
That's the key point about peripheral , it's only there to make things that are important better, not meant to be a mechanism for a small group of businessmen to engage in protectionist behaviour for their own narrow ends.
Sorry for all this real world commonsense , but the winds of change have blown and a change has come.
seanocelt
17-03-2013, 12:26
well after 2 years of most on here slagging Nelson off it seems he was not far off the mark all the time:lol:
As for the fines for no complaints book, I can see that being laughed out of court as well as the fines should be for running an illegal business not for not having some document you can't apply for. Typical Canarian shambles that just makes the lawyers rich.
Final line sums it up; all it ever was and will be, watch the lawyers make even more as the Canarian Gov drag their heels for another few years, because....whats in it for them if the latest "news" is true? Sorry, optimism is totally unfounded right now. Happy St Patrick's Day and good luck folks.
It's not really real world though is it Nelson because the 1995 hasn't been found to be illegal by any court - the only recent development is that the method used by the government to fine AGENTS was in breach of the bolkestein directive.
Basically they pinned the wrong crime on them, hence they changed the wording in subsequent actions.
It's not really real world though is it Nelson because the 1995 hasn't been found to be illegal by any court - the only recent development is that the method used by the government to fine AGENTS was in breach of the bolkestein directive.
Basically they pinned the wrong crime on them, hence they changed the wording in subsequent actions.
Wrong , keep up loaded , I know things are moving very fast , tony m posted the Tenerife legal lawyer had written the first three cases have been thrown out by the Canarian high court. Not the low or middle courts , but the actual high court. The judges did this because they ruled that the 1995 law is illegal because it does not comply with euro law .
If you don't start accepting the facts soon you are going to be like a jap soldier on a pacific island 30 years after the end of ww2 , still thinking its going on?
The court ruling s have occurred and the result is people with touristic apartments can rent them out themselves or through any agent of their choice , they can not legally be compelled to use a sole agent.
These events have happened , tony m is not speculating about what may or may not occur, this is now today the reality.
Such a lot of confused sole agents and supporters when confronted by plain and simple facts.
Firstly the 2 year period of grace is part of the new canary draft tourism law. They appear to be showing some decency in giving dormant touristics two years to come up with a sole agent etc. but we can forget all about that because the 1995 letting laws are in clear breach of euro law in any event.
Clearly the later fines for not having complaint forms and notices are just as illegal, remember the govt has not provided the simple to use Internet portal to enable individuals to register . The govt in effect has prevented registration and the forms thereafter .
As I have always said on here , ultra peripherals are fine, but you would need to show that this was important to make tourism so much better.
The thing is as many of us have been saying, individual renters do a better job than most sole agents, high standard accommodation that is very popular with the consumer .
That's the key point about peripheral , it's only there to make things that are important better, not meant to be a mechanism for a small group of businessmen to engage in protectionist behaviour for their own narrow ends.
Sorry for all this real world commonsense , but the winds of change have blown and a change has come.
Sorry?? Didn't you just tell us that the recent rulings, as interpreted by you and the newspaper "advertorial" you are basing your current thoughts upon have effectively lilled off the new legislation travelling through Parliament??
Now you tell us that the 2 year amnesty, which you percieve allows you to carry on as before is part of that self, same "new" legislation which has been killed off?
The real facts are that, as often in such cases, different people read into events what they personally want to, and until such time as the court(s) of appeal and the constitutional courts look closely at the rulings made by those below them and interpret then into everyday law, nothing of any real significance has actually happened recently, other than it appears to have been determined that stronger evidence of law breaking needs to be presented to courts in prosecutions based on the 1995 law.
The 1995 law itself has not been determined to be illegal (given the special status afforded to the Canaries), indeed, it was modified at the request of the European Court as a result of a challenge at that time. The modifications were incorporated and the law has stood ever since.
Unless the Peripheral status of these islands is withdrawn then the 1995 laws still stand until such time as they are amended (as is currently happening) and any subsequent challenge against them is heard by the central EU courts.
As previous post, not a lot has changed in reality, unless, like you, you are one of those affected directly and invoke a bit of wishful thinking!
^This is not legal advice, you should ...............
Have I missed something,didn't we already know that the original multas (which relied on evidence of renting on the Internet) were not proceed with through the courts?
Which was why the second round of multas were issued for not being in possession of and displaying the "libro de reclamaciones",which all businesses in Spain have to have and which you can only aquire by being a legally registered business. These multas are now being taken through the courts and whilst they may well be reduced ,I haven't seen any lawyer say that they willl be dropped and some have already being paid contrary to Mr.Hatrick's limited information and understanding.
Now you tell us that the 2 year amnesty, which you percieve allows you to carry on as before is part of that self, same "new" legislation which has been killed off?
The real facts are that, as often in such cases, different people read into events what they personally want to, and until such time as the court(s) of appeal and the constitutional courts look closely at the rulings made by those below them and interpret then into everyday law, nothing of any real significance has actually happened recently, other than it appears to have been determined that stronger evidence of law breaking needs to be presented to courts in prosecutions based on the 1995 law.
The 1995 law itself has not been determined to be illegal (given the special status afforded to the Canaries), indeed, it was modified at the request of the European Court as a result of a challenge at that time. The modifications were incorporated and the law has stood ever since.
Unless the Peripheral status of these islands is withdrawn then the 1995 laws still stand until such time as they are amended (as is currently happening) and any subsequent challenge against them is heard by the central EU courts.
As previous post, not a lot has changed in reality, unless, like you, you are one of those affected directly and invoke a bit of wishful thinking!
Actually, we are all commenting on an article published by presumably an acting member of the legal profession here in the canaries.
If he says that a minister within the tourism board gave a quote then I would believe it. If he actually puts it in print in a newspaper I would say it adds even more weight.
The Deputy Minister also clarified that once the new law comes into effect, owners will in any event be granted a 2 year amnesty in order to become compliant, during which period no action will be taken against owners who rent in breach of the new law.
So , once the authority have published this "new law", owners have a two year period with which to comply, during which they should have no fear of fines.
"Modifications to the 1995 law" ? Then why didn't these surface in the canarian court which threw out the recent cases ?
Maybe the lawyers weren't aware of them, or maybe they're just irrelevant , who knows ?
Perhaps someone more qualified, like an acting member of the legal profession here in the canaries, who's job it is to know what's going on.
- - - - - - - - - - merged double post - - - - - - - - - -
Sorry?? Didn't you just tell us that the recent rulings, as interpreted by you and the newspaper "advertorial" you are basing your current thoughts upon have effectively lilled off the new legislation travelling through Parliament??
Now you tell us that the 2 year amnesty, which you percieve allows you to carry on as before is part of that self, same "new" legislation which has been killed off?
The real facts are that, as often in such cases, different people read into events what they personally want to, and until such time as the court(s) of appeal and the constitutional courts look closely at the rulings made by those below them and interpret then into everyday law, nothing of any real significance has actually happened recently, other than it appears to have been determined that stronger evidence of law breaking needs to be presented to courts in prosecutions based on the 1995 law.
The 1995 law itself has not been determined to be illegal (given the special status afforded to the Canaries), indeed, it was modified at the request of the European Court as a result of a challenge at that time. The modifications were incorporated and the law has stood ever since.
Unless the Peripheral status of these islands is withdrawn then the 1995 laws still stand until such time as they are amended (as is currently happening) and any subsequent challenge against them is heard by the central EU courts.
As previous post, not a lot has changed in reality, unless, like you, you are one of those affected directly and invoke a bit of wishful thinking!
According to John Hatrick
the Canarian rental law (7/1995) is in breach of European Law, specifically something called the ‘Bolkestein Directive’.
Perhaps you should tell him he's got it wrong.
Altamira
17-03-2013, 14:14
Canary Government Appeals Bolkenstein Directive, confusion reigns and only time will tell, as it is likely that the Canary Government will consider appealing to the Supreme Court in Madrid.
The grounds for appeal against the Bolkenstein Directive judgement issued by the Canary High Court, it may be argued that it is in the Canaries National/Region interest in accordance with the existing EU ultraperipheral regulations to make such tourist laws and to enforce them.
From my understanding,Bolkestein took the best part of five years to draft these rules that constitute the laws adopted in December 2006. The canaries seem to have ignored them since, in fact you wonder if they even knew what was going on.
There has been plenty of time for protestation but nevertheless it will definitely be interesting to see what they do. If their draft law comes out soon we'll see, if it takes them more than a couple of months it'll be obvious the've been caught out and have had to redraft from scratch .
So to clarify , the 2 year delay to allow compliance is compliance with the new canary draft law that they are wanting to bring in. It's interesting because the govt is behaving with a bit more decency in proposing a 2 year period to let people catch up with the new law, they are getting a bit more democratic.
However because the judges have thrown out the first three illegal letting cases on the grounds that the 1995 law is illegal as it is in breach of euro law, then this 2 year thing does not really matter.
Following the judges ruling the 1995 law is no more. The draft law will have to be altered so that it too is not found to be illegal in euro law. So it would not matter today if the govt gave a one or a ten year period for people to comply with their new draft law, at the end of the day the canary govt have got to comply with euro law and stop working to have illegal laws.
What would be great would be if John Hatrick or tonym (same person?) could show where he gets the result of "the 1995 law is in breach of bolkestein".... I accept that the sanctions by the government may be in breach of this directive based on the fact the fines were for operating without "prior authorization" which we can all accept is in breach of BD.
But which part of 1995 law is in breach of BD ? All of it? Part of it? Of part of it does that mean the rest of it is not in breach ?
Also can we see a copy of the judgement that says the above .
That would clear up a lot of the confusion.
I’m not a cactus expert but........
I’m not a cactus expert but........
..... You can tell a prick when you see one?
What would be great would be if John Hatrick or tonym (same person?) could show where he gets the result of "the 1995 law is in breach of bolkestein".... I accept that the sanctions by the government may be in breach of this directive based on the fact the fines were for operating without "prior authorization" which we can all accept is in breach of BD.
But which part of 1995 law is in breach of BD ? All of it? Part of it? Of part of it does that mean the rest of it is not in breach ?
Also can we see a copy of the judgement that says the above .
That would clear up a lot of the confusion.
If my business depended on, or was in some-way going to effected by leg¡slation, I would want to read up for myself the precise rules and regulations. What´s the point of my typing something out that you may or may not believe ? The BD is only 33 pages and written in clear text, some of it irrelevant to this situation.
Surely the point is, the cases were thrown out because of the BD, for me it beggars belief that the cases went that far, unless the authorities thought that it didnt apply to them.
If my business depended on, or was in some-way going to effected by leg¡slation, I would want to read up for myself the precise rules and regulations. What´s the point of my typing something out that you may or may not believe ? The BD is only 33 pages and written in clear text, some of it irrelevant to this situation.
Surely the point is, the cases were thrown out because of the BD, for me it beggars belief that the cases went that far, unless the authorities thought that it didnt apply to them.
I'm not askin you to type out the bd - I can read it myself - what I'm asking you is that you - being a lawyer/solicitor (correct me if I'm wrong) - have access to the ruling from the judge which will state exactly why it was thrown out and exactly which part of 7/1995 is in breach of BD.
I think that's easy together hold of if you're able to write that article.
you stand corrected, I´m not the articles author, nor even in the legal profession, I´m simply quoting from his article.
Thank you for confirming that .
I think you'll agree that the article is quite vague about the reasons why the BD has trumped the action.
From what I know of the whole situation the BD has not rendered the entire 7/1995 illegal - in fact I believe it has only rendered the governments original METHOD of enforcing it illegal - ie: they sanctioned early victims with not having prior authorization to carry out an activity. The BD says you don't need prior authorization so for me that's as far as the two laws are linked until I see otherwise from a reliable source.
It's dangerous and misleading to jump to any conclusion other than that so far.
Unless you have something you can back it up with.
Altamira
17-03-2013, 19:02
Frustration I wish I could agree with Nelson and say that the game is up and all is well for the independant owner/agent, but it is far to early to jump on that bandwagon, but only time will tell and I hope it is settled before I pass away.
More interestingly of course (sorry to keep coming back to the crucial point), is the author(s) of the advertorial saying that the BD over-rides the previously agreed ultraperipheral legislation, by which these islands benefit in so many, many ways. ??
Unlikely I suspect
Again, would be nice for the article to have some meat on the bones.
If you look at any article I've ever written on the letting laws I've always quoted parts of laws etc where I get my "facts from" - this validates your claims and leaves it less open for debate/ mistrust / misinterpretation etc.
It would be nice if someone writing an article on such an important subject or so many people backed up their claims rather than just blurting out headlines that the desperate public will lap up gratefully .
If you look at any article I've ever written on the letting laws I've always quoted parts of laws etc where I get my "facts from" - this validates your claims and leaves it less open for debate/ mistrust / misinterpretation etc.
It would be nice if someone writing an article on such an important subject or so many people backed up their claims rather than just blurting out headlines that the desperate public will lap up gratefully .
As the Canarians say; Don't wait standing up ! Unlikely to get any legal quotes to back up his claim but time will tell.
In addition, before permission is even sought, the governing body should have an internet portal that is concise and easy to understand and in simple terms, outlining the method and stages necessary to obtain authorisation. there must also be a reasonable time scale given, which if not adhered to by the "competent authority" the applicant can assume authority is granted !
so.................how about.......no internet portal....no need to apply ! in fact....where do you apply to ?
Www.ipyme.org
Found it on a site listing every eu country's web portal as per the BD
The bd throws out sole agency, what is illegal is to be compelled to use a sole agent at all anywhere in Europe. It's pure accidental that these cases were for operating without prior authorisation , what bd makes illegal is the whole of the 1995 letting law, not just the prior authorisation bit.
Try to remember folks, ultra peripheral is there to help the region to cope better with its economy given its distance from Europe . As I have always said, individual letting does no harm to the canary economy, and sole agency does no benefit . You card expect to hide illegal monopoly sole agency behind ultra periferal when it does not actually improve tourism in the islands.
The lawyers will soon show what a myth that argument would be
The bd throws out sole agency, what is illegal is to be compelled to use a sole agent at all anywhere in Europe. It's pure accidental that these cases were for operating without prior authorisation , what bd makes illegal is the whole of the 1995 letting law, not just the prior authorisation bit.
Try to remember folks, ultra peripheral is there to help the region to cope better with its economy given its distance from Europe . As I have always said, individual letting does no harm to the canary economy, and sole agency does no benefit . You card expect to hide illegal monopoly sole agency behind ultra periferal when it does not actually improve tourism in the islands.
The lawyers will soon show what a myth that argument would be
For the benefit of any doubt amongst the posters here, can you direct us to your source which demonstrates conclusively that the BD overrules and effectively determins that the 1995 letting law is actually illegal?
aquarius13
17-03-2013, 22:58
Hi just want to check if a private landlord of a villa in residential area wants to half rent his place to tourist; does he need any lisence and inspection ?
Anyone need any meth for the Panto?
Hi just want to check if a private landlord of a villa in residential area wants to half rent his place to tourist; does he need any lisence and inspection ?
If it hasn't already got a license it needs one but you can't get one at the moment because of the moratorium.
It's part of a residential complex you won't ever get a license .
Anyone need any meth for the Panto?
Hit me with it
For the benefit of any doubt amongst the posters here, can you direct us to your source which demonstrates conclusively that the BD overrules and effectively determins that the 1995 letting law is actually illegal?
Read back on this thread to Friday, I think cim actually wrote out the lawyers article on the thread. The illegal bit in terms of euro law is the 1995 law, it goes against bd entirely. Tony's has been posting about the illegality of the 1995 law in relation to bd today.
Nobody is trying to mislead you or alter the facts. Personally I am not bothered if you don't accept the reality, you will still have to live with it. Your lack of understanding of the present dynamic wont alter what this lawyer has argued and what the Canarian high court judges have ruled
aquarius13
17-03-2013, 23:31
Thank you.
Read back on this thread to Friday, I think cim actually wrote out the lawyers article on the thread. The illegal bit in terms of euro law is the 1995 law, it goes against bd entirely. Tony's has been posting about the illegality of the 1995 law in relation to bd today.
Nobody is trying to mislead you or alter the facts. Personally I am not bothered if you don't accept the reality, you will still have to live with it. Your lack of understanding of the present dynamic wont alter what this lawyer has argued and what the Canarian high court judges have ruled
Ok so we've established your proof is : "an article in a paper said so".
So far no one on here or on JA is able to produce any exterior evidence to support your claims.
We can all agree that the initial cases have been thrown out because of the METHOD used to vilify the plaintiffs - that is: they were accused of beginning an activity without prior authority but BD says no one has to.
That is all that bolkestein has done - the government must have realized their early error because all subsequent fines were for different offenses (claim forms and inspection books ).
So far no one has come up with evidence that the BD makes the 1995 illegal in part or full. Not you , Nelson and not the article in question.
Further more the "2 year grace" reference has been shown to be a misunderstanding from something written in the new draft law that gives "dormant" complexes 2 years to get themselves together.
So in a nutshell, the article is inaccurate and totally misleading.
Please feel free to find some facts but don't come back saying the same old crap followed by - FACT.
Also : facts are not - "the solicitor wrote an article....."
None so blind as those who refuse to see
Yeah where are the facts nelson ?
None so blind as those who refuse to see
So show me your proof ? If you're so visually blessed you'd be able to find it.
seanocelt
18-03-2013, 03:30
I never saw an article. I DID see and advertisment. From a lawyer. Funny that eh?
None so blind as those who refuse to see
To see what?
Altamira
18-03-2013, 11:15
To see what? Misleading Article Hello Fonica, I think the article drafted by a certain lawyer will eventually be seen by all as a bit misleading.
However in the meantime it serves as a good sales tool, especially when a prospective apartment buyer asks a searching question about buying and then renting it out. The seller simply shows them the legally drafted article as evidence that everything is OK!!!!!!!!!!!!
The same article can be used by independant rental agents, trying to resurrect some of their illegal lost client apartment owners, again they would say everthing is OK!!!!!!!!!!
Perhaps the article was drafted with the intention of self promotion but it is certainly an excellent sales/rentals tool.
Misleading Article Hello Fonica, I think the article drafted by a certain lawyer will eventually be seen by all as a bit misleading.
However in the meantime it serves as a good sales tool, especially when a prospective apartment buyer asks a searching question about buying and then renting it out. The seller simply shows them the legally drafted article as evidence that everything is OK!!!!!!!!!!!!
The same article can be used by independant rental agents, trying to resurrect some of their illegal lost client apartment owners, again they would say everthing is OK!!!!!!!!!!
Perhaps the article was drafted with the intention of self promotion but it is certainly an excellent sales/rentals tool.
That's a very dangerous thing to have out in the open - we don't want another generation of property owners who mistakenly thought every thing was ok becuase of what a salesman or misleading article said.
yeah cause nellie will end up getting 2 more studios
http://www.*************.com/news/tourism-inspections.html
Replace stats with janet a n s c o m b e
Then scroll to comments read the last one from janet this morning
http://www.*************.com/news/tourism-inspections.html
Link blanked out Loaded...unbelievable in this day & age.
Link blanked out because of stupid rules on this forum - you can't mention the name of janet a n s c o m b e without it being starred out
From Janet's website (I hope she doesn't mind me copying her comments - tenerife forum want let me link to them)
"Bugger it. I am now getting emails telling me that there is now a freeforall, that renting can be resumed with impunity.
.
THIS IS NOT TRUE. Fines are still being issued. The law must still be complied with. The law is that:
.
- Residential property may not be rented for holidays under any circumstances. It may be long-let, and for minimum periods of 3 months.
- Tourist licensed property may be rented for holidays or long term. If long term then it is a matter between owner and tenant. If for holidays, then all bookings must go through the onsite sole agent. This is true for travel agents and owners.
.
The law is clear. There are three rulings by the Canarian High Court which apparently concern the activity of agents, and these are being investigated by Alotca lawyers (and presumably other lawyers too) at present, but it seems they concern travel agents only. Nothing has changed for owners or sole agents."
What has that lawyer done?
If that Lawyer is wrong he should be accountable for his news.
The above message is not legal advice and is only my opinion today i can change it at any given time like any other women.
cheers
x
golf birdie
18-03-2013, 12:27
it seems like two lawyers have different opinions, you chose who to believe. Most on here seem to agree with the one who up's their side of this sorry mess.
I'm guessing we can safely say when all this gets sorted the Canary Islands and other islands will be considered slightly different to the rest of Europe.
And indeed a sorry mess entirely.
Canaries want special status claiming its their only industry etc etc.
EU says member states need to open borders and have open competition to enable a healthy economy with free trade.
Canaries ignore ruling and carry on regardless, eventually cases of which come to light in the courts, not brought about by someone looking for free trade, but by the greed of massive fines to boost the economy coffers.
We are in for some interesting times, unfortunately the spanish press seem reluctant to publish what we would call news.
Meanwhile the protected bubble known as the canarian touristic moves further away from the real world economies, who deal with competition as a matter of course.
Not as sensationalist as the British press
boredinscotland
18-03-2013, 12:53
So because a 'Solicitor' says so everything is now fine,,and 'potential' new buyers will now be tempted to buy apartments and rent them out on the say so of the Solicitor who may/may not be touting for work,,,,,, How many apartments is said 'Solicitor' buying up himself?????, load of bollox innit
Don't hold back Boredinscotland
x
Fivepence
18-03-2013, 13:57
This thread has been going for about 2 years................seems there may be another 2 years to go...................:whistle:
At least we haven't got to the 'my dad is bigger than your dad stage'............yet. :goodluck:
This thread has been going for about 2 years................seems there may be another 2 years to go...................:whistle:
At least we haven't got to the 'my dad is bigger than your dad stage'............yet. :goodluck:
Only because the average age of the participants is so high that most peoples Dads are no longer with us........
And indeed a sorry mess entirely.
Canaries want special status claiming its their only industry etc etc.
EU says member states need to open borders and have open competition to enable a healthy economy with free trade.
Canaries ignore ruling and carry on regardless, eventually cases of which come to light in the courts, not brought about by someone looking for free trade, but by the greed of massive fines to boost the economy coffers.
We are in for some interesting times, unfortunately the spanish press seem reluctant to publish what we would call news.
Meanwhile the protected bubble known as the canarian touristic moves further away from the real world economies, who deal with competition as a matter of course.
Not the case at all. The Canaries together with a few other European outposts were GIVEN (rather than demanded) peripheral status by the EU at the outset and not specifically because of the importance of tourism to the economy (although clearly it is) but because of a much wider range of issues which do not only affect the Canary islands but also the other areas granted ultra peripheral status.
The Canaries have not "ignored" EU directives as such, but some directives, especially those relating to tax status (such as VAT) do not apply EU wide - they apply to the bulk of EU countries other than those with ultraperipheral status
My friend is looking for a lawyer.....Anyone one can post or PM which lawyer/s won the first 3 cases..... Pls Thanks
My friend is looking for a lawyer.....Anyone one can post or PM which lawyer/s won the first 3 cases..... Pls Thanks
It's not clear who it is but probably Jose Escobedo - although it's important to note that the cases were for agents and not individual owners .
Any idea which agents? Can reply by Pm or post
No idea sorry - it was agents who were fined early on in the clamp down (2011).
The phrasing on their fines related to not having prior authority to begin an activity.
Bolkestein directive negates the need to have prior authority therefore they have been thrown out.
The next cases with different wordings on the offenses will be the acid test.
Altamira
18-03-2013, 22:14
No idea sorry - it was agents who were fined early on in the clamp down (2011).
The phrasing on their fines related to not having prior authority to begin an activity.
Bolkestein directive negates the need to have prior authority therefore they have been thrown out.
The next cases with different wordings on the offenses will be the acid test.
Travel Agents I note from the JA website that the first three cases relate to travel agents.
lawyers who won the first three cases are,
tenerife solicitors 0034 922717845, e mail info Tenerifesolicitors.com.
I a sure they are not anything to do with Jose escobedo and alotca, but as I say , they have hit the right target , their focus is on the way the 1995 law is not acceptable in a free trade area. As I say , ultra peripheral needs to be used for the greater good of the region in question, not to create an unecesary burdon on consumers for no benefit to the regions economy.
Thankfully the canarian high court judges agree with their arguments, ashotels influence does not extent to the courts, thats very encouraging to note as well. There is hope for spain to continue to move towards democracy when an event like that occurs.
did you contact them nelson?
[QUOTE=Loaded;271958]No idea sorry - it was agents who were fined early on in the clamp down (2011).
The phrasing on their fines related to not having prior authority to begin an activity.
Bolkestein directive negates the need to have prior authority therefore they have been thrown out.
The next cases with different wordings on the offenses will be the acid test.[/QUOTE
Surely they would have been in Boletin....I find those difficult to understand.....maybe you can check pls
[QUOTE=Loaded;271958]No idea sorry - it was agents who were fined early on in the clamp down (2011).
The phrasing on their fines related to not having prior authority to begin an activity.
Bolkestein directive negates the need to have prior authority therefore they have been thrown out.
The next cases with different wordings on the offenses will be the acid test.[/QUOTE
Surely they would have been in Boletin....I find those difficult to understand.....maybe you can check pls
Would love to check but it's like finding a needle in a haystack, my previous comments are my own guesses as to what's recently developed and not concrete fact.
Altamira
19-03-2013, 09:52
Misleading Article? I also note from the recent Tenerife News article, that the lawyer stated that the first three cases thrown out by the Canary High Court were "against owners", however all other commentators say it was against agents and JA says it was against travel agents. You would think that if the writer of the article won the cases in question, that he would have known it actually related to 3 agents and not owners. It is important to stick to the facts, otherwise we will be unable to come to a reasonable view on the relevance of the article.
boredinscotland
19-03-2013, 10:23
The Lawyer is touting for business,a lot of people paid Jose Escobedo and he wants a bit of the action,,
junglejim
19-03-2013, 10:46
For your cactus collection Loaded
http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/7769/64ce83be.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/195/64ce83be.jpg/)
Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)
junglejim
19-03-2013, 17:02
what a prick!
No! No ! It's not Nelson !
lawyers who won the first three cases are,
tenerife solicitors 0034 922717845, e mail info Tenerifesolicitors.com.
I a sure they are not anything to do with Jose escobedo and alotca, but as I say , they have hit the right target , their focus is on the way the 1995 law is not acceptable in a free trade area. As I say , ultra peripheral needs to be used for the greater good of the region in question, not to create an unecesary burdon on consumers for no benefit to the regions economy.
Thankfully the canarian high court judges agree with their arguments, ashotels influence does not extent to the courts, thats very encouraging to note as well. There is hope for spain to continue to move towards democracy when an event like that occurs.
Whilst I'd love this to be true for all concerned are you SERIOUSLY confirming that TS are the company that actually won this in the Highest court in Spain - an English born/bred Solicitor who appears to specialise in writing Wills and stuff????
Can't see it myself, but happy to stand aside if it was actualy your mate Tony !!
My friend is looking for a lawyer.....Anyone one can post or PM which lawyer/s won the first 3 cases..... Pls Thanks
Having met with Jose Escobedo today on another matter, I took a few moments to ask him about this: hopefully I can now dispel some of the misinformation on here of late. The three cases, handled by lawyers in Las Palmas, were solely concerned with commercial entities acting as agents/brokers offering tourism services without having first sought authorisation to act as such and the 1995 Law has not been declared illegal. In his opinion, the concepts of Unity of Exploitation and Sole Agency are unaffected. Snr Escobedo has promised to send on to me a link to the cases.
A very few of his clients have had their fines quashed - some because of the time limit, but he cautioned that the "six months" does not in fact run from the date a lawyer first replies to the fine. Two other clients were also "successful" in that Turismo abandoned the cases once the validity of the evidence of internet advertising was challenged (and as has been widely reported, the evidence then given by the Inspectors switched to being a lack of Complaints Books). He also confirmed that inspections are indeed proceeding seeking more reliable evidence (i.e. a survey asking holidaymakers about their rental experience, cost etc). The majority of his clients' cases are coming up in Court over the next few months.
Much as we would all hope for more clarity as to how things will proceed, we really will have to wait until the new Law is presented and passed this Summer. As someone remarked to me, a recent article on the matter appears to be someone talking a "load of Bolkestein" !
Doreen coming out of forum retirement there !
Thanks as always to Doreen !!
So, Nellie, it wasn't your mate 'Tony then?
How wrong can you be??
Hopefully this will make people think before believing hastily written articles in free papers......
seanocelt
19-03-2013, 21:34
Exactly. Will not hold my breath though, wish some would hold their tongues,/typing fingers. Duped again some folks eh? Try not to let it happen again, easy for me to say i know, but really, a bit more patience is needed........this is, as we keep saying, Tenerife. You may well get the result you want, but not from a local rag 's advertorial.
Welcome back Doreen
We might get some sanity on here now.
I bet the cavas wearing off now
Still no word from Nellie though
lawyers who won the first three cases are,
tenerife solicitors 0034 922717845, e mail info Tenerifesolicitors.com.
I a sure they are not anything to do with Jose escobedo and alotca, but as I say , they have hit the right target , their focus is on the way the 1995 law is not acceptable in a free trade area. As I say , ultra peripheral needs to be used for the greater good of the region in question, not to create an unecesary burdon on consumers for no benefit to the regions economy.
Thankfully the canarian high court judges agree with their arguments, ashotels influence does not extent to the courts, thats very encouraging to note as well. There is hope for spain to continue to move towards democracy when an event like that occurs.
Fail................
Had a property investor tell me that estate agents were using the article as a sales tool ......
..... Anyone else think the tenerife news should revise or retract this article?????!!
Having met with Jose Escobedo today on another matter, I took a few moments to ask him about this: hopefully I can now dispel some of the misinformation on here of late. The three cases, handled by lawyers in Las Palmas, were solely concerned with commercial entities acting as agents/brokers offering tourism services without having first sought authorisation to act as such and the 1995 Law has not been declared illegal. In his opinion, the concepts of Unity of Exploitation and Sole Agency are unaffected. Snr Escobedo has promised to send on to me a link to the cases.
A very few of his clients have had their fines quashed - some because of the time limit, but he cautioned that the "six months" does not in fact run from the date a lawyer first replies to the fine. Two other clients were also "successful" in that Turismo abandoned the cases once the validity of the evidence of internet advertising was challenged (and as has been widely reported, the evidence then given by the Inspectors switched to being a lack of Complaints Books). He also confirmed that inspections are indeed proceeding seeking more reliable evidence (i.e. a survey asking holidaymakers about their rental experience, cost etc). The majority of his clients' cases are coming up in Court over the next few months.
Much as we would all hope for more clarity as to how things will proceed, we really will have to wait until the new Law is presented and passed this Summer. As someone remarked to me, a recent article on the matter appears to be someone talking a "load of Bolkestein" !
You seem nice and sensible - you should stay around, you offer a semblance of sanity on an otherwise mental thread.... :-) x
Had a property investor tell me that estate agents were using the article as a sales tool ......
..... Anyone else think the tenerife news should revise or retract this article?????!!
If that is the case (and I wouldn't be surprised) then yes they probably should. That said, whether they would be prepared to take our (i.e. TF poster's) word for it is another matter entirely, and worse still of course the author is undoubtedly a paying advertiser too, so therefore even more unlikely .... unless someone "trustworthy" is prepared to highlight the error of their ways.
There are only 2 people who spring instantly to mind here - one being she whose name may never be mentioned here, and the other being our very recent (and welcome) returnee
I'm getting Nellie withdrawl symptoms too !
Nelson got exposed for blagging
boredinscotland
21-03-2013, 00:52
Where is Nelson and Tony? away to make up more crap that the sheeple will believe,lol
seanocelt
21-03-2013, 03:00
If that is the case (and I wouldn't be surprised) then yes they probably should. That said, whether they would be prepared to take our (i.e. TF poster's) word for it is another matter entirely, and worse still of course the author is undoubtedly a paying advertiser too, so therefore even more unlikely .... unless someone "trustworthy" is prepared to highlight the error of their ways.
There are only 2 people who spring instantly to mind here - one being she whose name may never be mentioned here, and the other being our very recent (and welcome) returnee
I'm getting Nellie withdrawl symptoms too !
Im not as elegant, high profile or as pretty as those 2 esteemed ladies....BUT I SMELT A RAT FROM THE GETGO!!. So did you, and one or 2 others. Not many though.
Altamira
21-03-2013, 09:47
Had a property investor tell me that estate agents were using the article as a sales tool ......
..... Anyone else think the tenerife news should revise or retract this article?????!!
Misleading Article I had previously mentioned that the article would probably be used as an excellent sales tool and perhaps that was the original intention of the article. What is needed is clarity, therefore the Tenerife News should update/revise or retract the article ASAP, as it simply adds to the confusion surrounding the illegal rental issues of the existing 1995 law and the proposed new touristic laws.
Hi! I'm new on this forum but have been reading the discussion about the article on illegal letting in the Tenerife News. Can someone put a link to the article on here as I've tried everything but can't seem to locate it on line.
It's in island connections as well, if you can't find a copy online just go to your local chippy - or public loo
junglejim
21-03-2013, 20:48
It´s back in this week´s edition!
Come on Nelson, this is so unlike you, several days silence ....... the suspense is KILLING me !
Come back Tony all is forgiven
boredinscotland
21-03-2013, 22:20
they are away reading up on more 'facts'
Hi pals, I have not had a lot to say these past days as I feel that the issue has moved in the way I had hoped. The three cases thrown out by the Canarian judges seem relevant to me, if they are agents that's still very relevant, the cases were won on the basis of euro law and harmonisation .
The outcome was in my opinion very positive . It's no point coming on here responding to people trying to make out that nothing's changed and the momentum has not moved towards an end to these daft restrictions.
I am content to watch events unfold, we are on the right road and in my opinion a sensible and commonsense reform is not that far off in the future.
boredinscotland
21-03-2013, 23:02
yawn yawn yawn
Without getting silly I disagree , I'm not going to ram anything down your throat or say the boots back on the original foot - I just think the way this is going is:
The new draft law will give existing "dormant complexes" (that have now had their licenses deactivated ) the chance to regain their tourist status again. This will be a 2 year time span in which those complexes will have to come up to 3 star levels and abide by unity of exploitation - sole agent .
If they don't do it in those 2 years they are closed permanently for tourism.
Those plots closed permanently will he swapped for new plots to he built and developed. That is: one place closes gives a new undeveloped plot authorization to build a brand new tourist complex.
Yes guys you were right, I've just been reading up on more facts.
Muppets last post re the "special status" of the canaries. Sorry to disappoint but I could find NOTHING that suggests that the islands have some "golden ticket" exempting them from EU law.
Try some common sense, if only ONE part of the BD was enough to get the cases of the agents thrown out of court, why do you think that the other parts would not be valid too ?
Fact : THe Bolkestein Directive was made law in 2006 to be fully implemented by Dec. 2009. The Canarians have had over three years of ignoring this law whether you like it or not.
Anyone disbelieving ought to go and tell the high court they got it wrong.
Well that's fine, but in my opinion reality is now coming into the issue , the new draft law will be illegal under euro law , so not really an issue what that ends up saying.
The real world is now the factor in this affair.
Tony : no ones saying the BD wasn't right- they were right to throw those cases out because the charges against those businesses were in breach of the BD........ Ie : they were fined as businesses for not having prior authority to begin trading.
The BD says you don't need to have this so they has escaped prosecution .
If the fines had been for "renting out unlicensed / residential accommodation to tourists" they wouldn't have had a leg to stand on and bolkestein would not have helped .
Why would new draft las be ilegal Nelson?
Yes guys you were right, I've just been reading up on more facts.
Muppets last post re the "special status" of the canaries. Sorry to disappoint but I could find NOTHING that suggests that the islands have some "golden ticket" exempting them from EU law.
Try some common sense, if only ONE part of the BD was enough to get the cases of the agents thrown out of court, why do you think that the other parts would not be valid too ?
Fact : THe Bolkestein Directive was made law in 2006 to be fully implemented by Dec. 2009. The Canarians have had over three years of ignoring this law whether you like it or not.
Anyone disbelieving ought to go and tell the high court they got it wrong.
http://www.ums-riate.fr/lexique/modeleterme_gb.php?id=37
This should help
seanocelt
22-03-2013, 02:17
Hi pals, I have not had a lot to say these past days as I feel that the issue has moved in the way I had hoped. The three cases thrown out by the Canarian judges seem relevant to me, if they are agents that's still very relevant, the cases were won on the basis of euro law and harmonisation .
The outcome was in my opinion very positive . It's no point coming on here responding to people trying to make out that nothing's changed and the momentum has not moved towards an end to these daft restrictions.
I am content to watch events unfold, we are on the right road and in my opinion a sensible and commonsense reform is not that far off in the future.
I really wish you would see it as the facts presented on this the forum v the reports presented elsewhere ( and the heresay); IE not a competition, but different views on where the law stands now, and where it will take us.
None of us really want to abuse/hurt you. The conclusions you draw weakens any belief among a few of us that you understand the gulf between wish-list thinking and Canarian/EU legislation.
You are quite rightly, desperately fighting for your money back, i for one really feel for you there. But "momemtum changes/ common sense"? In the Canaries? In the EU with all its "right shaped banana" nonsense? It does you no favours taking that stance, it just comes over as stubborn. By all means fight the fight, but its a shame you cannot use your plight to gain support from this forum, instead of making so many rebel at your (justified im sure you feel) indignance. As always, i wish you well, this stress could cause many a person illness.
http://www.ums-riate.fr/lexique/modeleterme_gb.php?id=37
This should help
and some more
http://www.upei.ca/iis/art_fm_1
http://www.upei.ca/iis/art_fm_1
Don't forget this article also
http://www.upei.ca/iis/art_am_1547 (http://http://www.badgerbadgerbadger.com/)
IS this thread still going???? You know when things have become obsessive to people when you see posts at 1.50 in the morning,when people are reading articles from "The Lexicon of European Spacial planning".
Angusjim
22-03-2013, 10:41
IS this thread still going???? You know when things have become obsessive to people when you see posts at 1.50 in the morning,when people are reading articles from "The Lexicon of European Spacial planning".
What a load of Muppets :laugh:
seanocelt
22-03-2013, 10:52
IS this thread still going???? You know when things have become obsessive to people when you see posts at 1.50 in the morning,when people are reading articles from "The Lexicon of European Spacial planning".
Some of use here are just getting in from work and catching up on events, and not just on this forum. Typical reply of someone living in a bubble. A....N.....D....................its REALLY IMPORTANT to Tenerife this subject.
Angusjim
22-03-2013, 10:55
Some of use here are just getting in from work and catching up on events, and not just on this forum. Typical reply of someone living in a bubble. A....N.....D....................its REALLY IMPORTANT to Tenerife this subject.
Touchy you need to sit down and have a cup of Earl Grey must be cause you are up far to early today :raspberry2::wave:
seanocelt
22-03-2013, 11:00
away n play in the snaw AJ!
Angusjim
22-03-2013, 11:04
away n play in the snaw AJ!
Well there is plenty here anyway :tiphat:
Just had a client ask for toilet paper, so gave him the article from the papers! Seems the best thing to do with it :laugh:
This week 2 inspectors entered our office obligating us to give the details of in total 20 owners who are renting out their property illegally.
Altamira
22-03-2013, 14:39
This week 2 inspectors entered our office to obligate us to give the details of in total 20 owners who are renting out their property illegally.Administration Obligation to Tourist Inspectors Hello Rene, are you saying that you are an administrator, and therefore have a legal obligation to hand over to the tourist inspectors information on suspected illegal rented apartments and if so does this extend to suspected illegal independant agents.
junglejim
22-03-2013, 14:42
ASHOTEL report a reduction in bookings for their normally very busy "Semana Santa" week in preference for "Extrahotelero" private apartments that "Tourists prefer"
http://www.diariodeavisos.com/semana-santa-mejora-cosas/
Quote
"Por zonas, el gerente de la patronal hotelera destacó que en el Sur de la Isla se llegará, e incluso, superará el 85%, mientras que en el Norte rondará el 70%. En ambos casos, indicó, hay un aumento de reservas extrahoteleras, es decir, en apartamentos, debido fundamentalmente al turismo extranjero que prefiere este tipo de establecimientos que son más baratos."
I´m sure this will only increase their resolve to get the new laws in place for their monopoly to bite deeper - despite what the customer wants!
from JA.com regarding people using article or treating it as gospell:
"I’m afraid it’s incorrect, and contradicted by the Alotca lawyers. What I have posted is formal legal advice from them, and I note that the piece referred to specifically says it “does not amount to legal advice”. As I’ve posted, legal advice from Alotca lawyers is that nothing has changed as far as individuals are concerned.
.
The three successful appeals referred to are in the eastern province, not in Tenerife, and specifically are those of agents, and even then, just for not getting prior permission before starting their business operations. It is this that is in conflict with the Bolkenstein Directive … “legal advice” is that it is this and nothing else.
.
I fear that people will get in trouble if they rely on this article and consider there now to be a free for all in terms of letting, not least because inspections continue, as I posted, with inspectors presenting themselves as quality surveyors. The article says that inspections have been scaled back. Alotca lawyers have confirmed this is not the case."
Do people nowadays believe what they read in the tabloids?
junglejim
22-03-2013, 15:17
Do people today believe what´s posted on the Tenerife Forum ?
Administration Obligation to Tourist Inspectors Hello Rene, are you saying that you are an administrator, and therefore have a legal obligation to hand over to the tourist inspectors information on suspected illegal rented apartments and if so does this extend to suspected illegal independant agents.
Under Data Protection Laws in the EU, you have to comply with any request for data from an authority who is investigating a criminal offence.
only if it can be linked to an actual investigation fishing is not allowed
This week 2 inspectors entered our office obligating us to give the details of in total 20 owners who are renting out their property illegally.
Under Data Protection Laws in the EU, you have to comply with any request for data from an authority who is investigating a criminal offence.
If 2 official inspectors turn up and say they are investigating a criminal offence, I think most people would supply the data rather than risk committing an offence, especially as most administrators are probably well aware that the people are letting illegal anyway.
Do people nowadays believe what they read in the tabloids?
Only when it suits them, as we can clearly see from this case.
Do people nowadays believe what they read in the tabloids?
Nelson does when it suits him and when it comes from an English lawyer whose web page boasts absolutely NO testamonials and whose article declares that it is not offering legal advice.You can fool some of the people.................!
It doesn't matter how many brown envelopes are passed now, it's down to interpretation of European law which trumps local canarian or national spanish law, and about time too. (IMO)
Should anyone have the inclination to try and read some relevant articles on this Bolkestein Directive, they may come to the conclusion that its the result of some crazy thinking. If so, how ironic that one crazy law cancels out another to restore common sense !
Crashed and Burned......................................dear
xx
The 2 inspectors handed over an inspection report (acta de inspección) and, as this was not the first time, we knew that he had to give these details. The first time, somewhere in the summer of 2012, we didn´t know for sure and we asked our lawyer who confirmed that we had the obligation to give the requested information. You can be fined if you do not provide these details.
Also in residential complexes it is a hot issue as quite a few people are letting out their property short term. Other owners don´t want short term renting in their complex, but don´t want to denounce their neigbours. I am getting e-mails from owners almost on a daily basis why we are acting against short term renting and from other owners why we don´t act proactive.
So for the people interested, we act as follows:
The issue will be on the agenda to discuss in a general meeting.
In a general meeting we explain what is allowed and what is not allowed.
The owners decide, by a majority vote, if the community wants to denounce the owners illegally renting out their property.
If the majority of owners vote to do not denounce the renter, we don´t do anything as we have to execute that what is agreed by the owners.
If the majority says that the community should act against the short term renters we denounce them at the tourist board (with the details of the website etc.).
Just for the records:
The community does not have the legal obligation to denounce short term renting in a residential complex.
Owners who are in disagreement with the decision taken to not make a denouncement can do this in their own name.
seanocelt
23-03-2013, 01:00
Do people nowadays believe what they read in the tabloids? Seemingly...aye.
- - - - - - - - - - merged double post - - - - - - - - - -
The 2 inspectors handed over an inspection report (acta de inspección) and, as this was not the first time, we knew that he had to give these details. The first time, somewhere in the summer of 2012, we didn´t know for sure and we asked our lawyer who confirmed that we had the obligation to give the requested information. You can be fined if you do not provide these details.
Also in residential complexes it is a hot issue as quite a few people are letting out their property short term. Other owners don´t want short term renting in their complex, but don´t want to denounce their neigbours. I am getting e-mails from owners almost on a daily basis why we are acting against short term renting and from other owners why we don´t act proactive.
So for the people interested, we act as follows:
The issue will be on the agenda to discuss in a general meeting.
In a general meeting we explain what is allowed and what is not allowed.
The owners decide, by a majority vote, if the community wants to denounce the owners illegally renting out their property.
If the majority of owners vote to do not denounce the renter, we don´t do anything as we have to execute that what is agreed by the owners.
If the majority says that the community should act against the short term renters we denounce them at the tourist board (with the details of the website etc.).
Just for the records:
The community does not have the legal obligation to denounce short term renting in a residential complex.
Owners who are in disagreement with the decision taken to not make a denouncement can do this in their own name.
THUD!! That was the sound of a massive penny dropping......to announce the issue has in fact NOT gone away. SKELP! thats a Celtic (with a "K" ) word to illustrate a slap accross the chops of those who thought it would/had.
- - - - - - - - - - merged double post - - - - - - - - - -
This week 2 inspectors entered our office obligating us to give the details of in total 20 owners who are renting out their property illegally.
"THIS WEEK". Sorry for posting this time of night, just keeping it real. Thanks Ren-e Cant find "accent" on "e" sorry..
Altamira
23-03-2013, 09:37
The 2 inspectors handed over an inspection report (acta de inspección) and, as this was not the first time, we knew that he had to give these details. The first time, somewhere in the summer of 2012, we didn´t know for sure and we asked our lawyer who confirmed that we had the obligation to give the requested information. You can be fined if you do not provide these details.
Also in residential complexes it is a hot issue as quite a few people are letting out their property short term. Other owners don´t want short term renting in their complex, but don´t want to denounce their neigbours. I am getting e-mails from owners almost on a daily basis why we are acting against short term renting and from other owners why we don´t act proactive.
So for the people interested, we act as follows:
The issue will be on the agenda to discuss in a general meeting.
In a general meeting we explain what is allowed and what is not allowed.
The owners decide, by a majority vote, if the community wants to denounce the owners illegally renting out their property.
If the majority of owners vote to do not denounce the renter, we don´t do anything as we have to execute that what is agreed by the owners.
If the majority says that the community should act against the short term renters we denounce them at the tourist board (with the details of the website etc.).
Just for the records:
The community does not have the legal obligation to denounce short term renting in a residential complex.
Owners who are in disagreement with the decision taken to not make a denouncement can do this in their own name.
Tourist Inspectors Touristic Apartments Hello Rene, thanks for the response. However I assume on some larger tourist establishments the administrator would not be fully aware of exactly who was illegally letting their apartments. Would the administrator be expected to divulge those who are suspected of illegal letting but where there is no concrete evidence? I understand much of the suspected illegal letting has now gone underground and described as friends & family.
Also if the tourist inspectors were to also ask the sole agent for details of suspected illegal lettings, are they also legally obliged to hand over the details of those suspected of committing the illegal letting offence?
I can't see any sole agents withholding that information lol
Not much defence on the forum over the last week,
Where are all those hahaha you were all wrong people gone?
That's interesting and significant, ass hotel openly saying that their Easter bookings disaster is due to clients moving to private apartments,.
The private apartments will have less clients themselves , many not letting or just the normal family and friends. Whatever's wrong with the hotel bookings, it's not because the private apartments have suddenly poached more punters.
We are almost at the cut off point for a big decline in private apartment customers . There will be few this summer as the owners pulled Internet ads winter 2011, they scrapped bookings summer 2012 but they can't deliver punters now without a advert.
So there we are hotels declining , hoping to get customers who actually don't want to stay in a hotel, and apartments banned from operating who could otherwise be full of customers .
The govt can not continue this madness much longer,this crazy policy will attract other bodies interest , the whole Canarian economy and people are being devastated by it
The apartments that are not banned from renting out are full of customers.
nelson I thought you'd finally won, commonsense prevailed, shoe on the other foot and all that, are you now admitting you jumped the gun some what and believed some English Lawyers non legal advice in a newspaper? It was just his opinion.
Take resident holiday lets off the market and those that don't run through a sole agent and fine anyone breaking that law heavily.
Those clients don't worry about if it's Bill & Marisa's apartment or if it's being controlled by a sole agent.
Not all sole agents want to as you say downgrade apartment furniture.
Maybe your decor is shyte and they want to be diplomatic about telling you so...
Get with the times nelson, all this free for all has to stop and a standardized system put in place
Think of the tourist for once, they need to be cared for with a proper regulated system for their piece of mind.
The apartments that are not banned from renting out are full of customers.
That's good, but the islands are in a disaster cos there are not enough legal beds to keep the economy going. The 15 years when renting was not attacked meant thousands of jobs were built on the whole foot fall.
So it's great for you but a complete econiomic disaster for the majority, plus your clients won't like the Tenerife that's going to emerge, it will bite you too if the madness continues much longer
seanocelt
23-03-2013, 13:50
Too right Oasis, hard finding accom for family, not many advertised now so they fill up. Hotels are dear too. Black market opportunities through word of mouth, just like the old days!
That's good, but the islands are in a disaster cos there are not enough legal beds to keep the economy going. The 15 years when renting was not attacked meant thousands of jobs were built on the whole foot fall.
So it's great for you but a complete econiomic disaster for the majority, plus your clients won't like the Tenerife that's going to emerge, it will bite you too if the madness continues much longer
Really don't understand how my clients will not like the future Tenerife and how it's going to bite me?
Angusjim
23-03-2013, 14:30
So far on this thread we have only heard about two very good sole agents and one very bad one who seems to upset lots of people. Does anyone have any experiences / information to share with us about other sole agents and what complexes they are on.
That's good, but the islands are in a disaster cos there are not enough legal beds to keep the economy going. The 15 years when renting was not attacked meant thousands of jobs were built on the whole foot fall.
So it's great for you but a complete econiomic disaster for the majority, plus your clients won't like the Tenerife that's going to emerge, it will bite you too if the madness continues much longer
I don't know what you are talking about,I haven't seen the island as busy as it has been this winter for quite a long time.All good restaurants have had a great winter,legal apartments full, beaches crowded,come on Nelson ,there really isn't a "complete economic disaster " anywhere other than in your mind.
But you have to understand fonica if he is no longer getting holiday makers, viewing it from his armchair in Yorkshire he'll just automatically think its a disaster and there's nobody here.
Angusjim
23-03-2013, 14:54
I don't know what you are talking about,I haven't seen the island as busy as it has been this winter for quite a long time.All good restaurants have had a great winter,legal apartments full, beaches crowded,come on Nelson ,there really isn't a "complete economic disaster " anywhere other than in your mind.
I know of one illegal complex that is also very very busy with booking a year in advance ( with mainly repeat business ) so I would think the illegal market is still contributing quite a bit to the crowds you are seeing. Is there enough legal beds in complexes with a high standard of accomodation to house all the illegal punters ?
golf birdie
23-03-2013, 15:52
I don't know what you are talking about,I haven't seen the island as busy as it has been this winter for quite a long time.All good restaurants have had a great winter,legal apartments full, beaches crowded,come on Nelson ,there really isn't a "complete economic disaster " anywhere other than in your mind.
as tourism is the major income for this island and if it is so busy, how come there are so many out people of work?
seanocelt
23-03-2013, 16:12
If you mean government numbers re jobseekers, the construction industry has stopped. Dead. Nowt to do with tourist numbers. Accom is hard to come by but that doesnt always impact on jobs available. EG...all inclusives full not helping bar trade. Private lets full in winter, many Scananavians and pensioners on a budget going to Iceland and Mercadona.
golf birdie
23-03-2013, 16:19
If you mean government numbers re jobseekers, the construction industry has stopped. Dead. Nowt to do with tourist numbers. Accom is hard to come by but that doesnt always impact on jobs available. EG...all inclusives full not helping bar trade. Private lets full in winter, many Scananavians and pensioners on a budget going to Iceland and Mercadona.
if everywhere is full why are they not building more places, surely something is not adding up.
Because they can't build unless its 5*+
golf birdie
23-03-2013, 17:04
Because they can't build unless its 5*+
why? I'm sure someone told me over year or so back they were to build on the road out of Los cristianos. How's that coming along?
Because they can't build unless its 5*+
Another well thought out strategy by the thicko's :whistle:
golf birdie
23-03-2013, 17:40
Another well thought out strategy by the thicko's :whistle:
makes you wonder. If the place is busting at the seams and has 1000's of unemployed builders why on earth are they not building? On the other hand maybe the powerful hotels who seem to run this place just don't want any competition.
Another well thought out strategy by the thicko's :whistle:
Not sure why? There are thousands upon thousands of average run of the mill accommodation in Tenerife, it makes perfect sense to try and balance that with some 5* hotels.
Tenerife will always attract the working class, but having options for those who don't want a cheap full English and a euro pint seems like a move in the right direction.
In fact I'd probably say that it's a lot of the basic apartments that private owners haven't kept up to scratch which brings the place down. Owners who have reaped the rewards (sometimes illegally) yet not bothered to put anything back into the island deserve everything they get.
golf birdie
23-03-2013, 17:56
Not sure why? There are thousands upon thousands of average run of the mill accommodation in Tenerife, it makes perfect sense to try and balance that with some 5* hotels.
Tenerife will always attract the working class, but having options for those who don't want a cheap full English and a euro pint seems like a move in the right direction.
In fact I'd probably say that it's a lot of the basic apartments that private owners haven't kept up to scratch which brings the place down. Owners who have reaped the rewards (sometimes illegally) yet not bothered to put anything back into the island deserve everything they get.
I'd say it would make more sense to get the hotels up to the standard their stars say they are. How some of these places ever got 3 or 4 stars is beyond me. I think they must of just added a couple themselves.
I'd say it would make more sense to get the hotels up to the standard their stars say they are. How some of these places ever got 3 or 4 stars is beyond me. I think they must of just added a couple themselves.
Ha Ha! I certainly wouldn't disagree with that - there's been some strange criteria used in a few places to gain their stars, no doubts about it.
I know where you are coming from Pabs but they built a few in La Caleta but never thought it through properly and its like staying in the outback, They even closed the bar on the beach in their wisdom! I think they should concentrate on bulldozing some of the legal sh**holes in PDLA first!
I know where you are coming from Pabs but they built a few in La Caleta but never thought it through properly and its like staying in the outback, They even closed the bar on the beach in their wisdom! I think they should concentrate on bulldozing some of the legal sh**holes in PDLA first!
Yep, unfortunately Las Americas, or at least parts of it let Tenerife down. I spent a lot of happy years living in and around LA and it has to be said revisiting them these days makes me a little sad.
I actually enjoy La Caleta - it's not somewhere I'd choose to stay, but I enjoy at least one day over there when I'm over - its nice to chill out after spending a few days thinking i'm18 again!! :-)
seanocelt
23-03-2013, 18:26
There has been a morotorium on new builds for years, oft quoted on this thread, no chance of new builds happening until regulation of old accom achieved- chicken/egg im afraid.
And there is stuff in the new drafts for modernization of existing unlicensed accommodation .
They don't want to build loads of new blocks because there's already loads of tourist sites out there - they just need regenerating.
The last tourist laws from 2010 replaced the the key system for apartments with a new star system beginning at 3 going up to 5..... What price that they start looking to force the old 1 and 2 key places to update to 3,4 or 5 star?
why? I'm sure someone told me over year or so back they were to build on the road out of Los cristianos. How's that coming along?
2 post above
golf birdie
23-03-2013, 19:08
2 post above
I sure someone said that would be lifted and there were big money people waiting to fill their boots......
I sure someone said that would be lifted and there were big money people waiting to fill their boots......
Yes that was me
Fivepence
23-03-2013, 19:13
Yes that was me
"I'm Spartacus" :)
junglejim
23-03-2013, 19:21
Maybe the Russians will move their money over here from Cyprus - or have they already started?
Now that the levy has started , let´s watch the fun !
Fivepence
23-03-2013, 19:21
It says youre Fivepence?
Dam, you've sussed me.............:crazy:
Dam, you've sussed me.............:crazy:
It wasn't difficult you're so predicable.
I knew the answer before your statement.
So, Pablo1 thinks illegal renters don't put back into the economy!!!! How short-sighted can you get!
I have been 'illegally' renting my place for 10 years and average 36 weeks per year in Los Gigantes. During that time I have completely reburbished my apartment - new bathrooms, new kitchen, retiled throughout, new pipework, etc etc - approx cost 20K Euros. I presume my builder paid his taxes on that lot. I have bought all new furniture - new beds, settees, TV cabinet, TV, patio furniture (more than once due to breakages) etc etc - supporting local businesses whom I also presume pay taxes. I employ a property manager who cleans, looks after my clients etc - she declares her earnings too. This doesn't include the repairs and renewals by the local handyman, the laundry, plus the linen and soft furnishings which needs replacing every two years due to wear and tear - all supporting the local economy by shops and businesses who pay their taxes.
Say my clients spend about 350 Euros per week on meals out, supermarket shopping, trips out, car hire - and that's probably an underestimate based on a couple in the apartment - for 4 people or with kids I'm sure it would be a whole lot more. My average 36 weeks, times the low estimate of 350 Euros spend, brings an additional 12600 Euros into the local economy. Times that by the number of 'illegal' renters I am assured there are in Los Gigantes alone - 1000 (I was told that by a local Estate Agent last week) - us 'illegal' renters are bringing in a minimum of 12,600,000 Euros per annum - yes, 12 Million Euros - just on tourist spend in the area! And that is only in the small village of Los Gigantes - what would that figure be in Las Americas!
I, personally, have always declared my income. I have an S.L. company and each year go to my Accountant who produces the books and I pay the tax to the Hacienda. Yes, it is possible to declare 'illegal' earnings because at the moment, the Hacienda don't talk to Tourismo. The income I make is paid into my company's bank account in Tenerife and I use it - in Tenerife only. I might use it for car hire whilst I'm there, or for meals out or for further reburbishments as necessary at the apartment. Every penny, or should I say every cent, is recirculated into the economy. Even if 'illegal' renters don't declare their earnings, I'm sure a high proportion of them keep the money in Tenerife and spend it there. Others might take their income in the UK - which is fine, as they are supposed to declare it there too, but even if they don't they are no doubt still visiting the island regularly themselves and spending their 'ill gotten gains' - as some people seem to think of it.
Compare this to a person who buys an apartment in a residential community and uses it themselves for an average of say three months per year but doesn't let it out. That property will stand empty for 9 months of the year - unused and doing nothing to support the local businesses. That's why Los Gigantes is a ghost town outside of the winter months when the swallows are out.
Please don't tell me I am doing nothing to support the local economy and 'deserve everything I get'!
I'm happy for you beanie - now if you would have read what I said, it was intended for those who haven't done any of the work that you yourself have, and rent their apartments out privately even though they resemble a run down council flat from back in the 70's
There are far too many of these in the south unfortunately and for every owner who takes pride in their apartment there are another couple who want to earn what they can as quick and cheap as they can... Cest la vie
Thanks Beanie how do we contact you?
junglejim
23-03-2013, 21:17
Similiar to Beanie, my friend bought in Panorama , spent over 30K on refurbishing and furnishing he rented out through an agency with cleaners etc and had high occupancy with good high value clients - now thanks to Konrad's diktat and poor offer he has chosen only to use it for himself and family and no longer uses a cleaner, the facilities ,and around 35 weeks goes empty with no spend .
Quite a few on Panorama have gone the same way , others are taking the risk -the vast majority on our complex have upgraded to a high standard but would fail on not having a full length mirror although they have top of the range TV/ DVD and music systems and aircon !
I wonder what entertainment you get from a mirror unless it´s on the ceiling?
.
Similiar to Beanie, my friend bought in Panorama , spent over 30K on refurbishing and furnishing he rented out through an agency with cleaners etc and had high occupancy with good high value clients - now thanks to Konrad's diktat and poor offer he has chosen only to use it for himself and family and no longer uses a cleaner, the facilities ,and around 35 weeks goes empty with no spend .
Quite a few on Panorama have gone the same way , others are taking the risk -the vast majority on our complex have upgraded to a high standard but would fail on not having a full length mirror although they have top of the range TV/ DVD and music systems and aircon !
I wonder what entertainment you get from a mirror unless it´s on the ceiling?
.
Times that by a few thousand and it just goes to show how much the Bars/Restaurantes/Shops/Taxi drivers are losing,Its CRAZY...Only in Tenerife eh!
As i said in an earlier thread the Island is run by idiots!
9Plus - you're not a Tourism Inspector are you?!
No no not at all
- - - - - - - - - - merged double post - - - - - - - - - -
I'd seen on a wall in Los Cristianos yesterday
Individual rentas was ere
X
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.4 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.