View Full Version : The Tenerife illegal lettings thread
I remain unable to accept that monopoly sole agency is in any way shape or form working well. We always hear loaded does it right Konrad does not. Well I would certainly pay my dues to a loaded style agent, just to be legal within this mad system, but all you would be doing in effect would be paying a sort of protection money to the agent, giving them a rake off for the sake of it. If as in loadeds case you are free to furnish as you want and occupy when you want , well thank you very much mr kind agent . At least with konrads approach all the punters do get a bog standard apartment, it's definitely a nearly hotel experience , no frills and no apartments better than the rest.
We all have to focus on the real world , not the Alice in wonderland world , monopoly sole agency is just plain crazy. It is an incredible imposition on the basic straightforward business of individuals renting out their holiday homes.
Why would it ever be required to group them all together and run them collectively like a large single business ???
welshman
28-08-2013, 23:09
As the dragons would say its not a business model that I want to invest in so sorry I,m out.
I remain unable to accept that monopoly sole agency is in any way shape or form working well. We always hear loaded does it right Konrad does not. Well I would certainly pay my dues to a loaded style agent, just to be legal within this mad system, but all you would be doing in effect would be paying a sort of protection money to the agent, giving them a rake off for the sake of it. If as in loadeds case you are free to furnish as you want and occupy when you want , well thank you very much mr kind agent . At least with konrads approach all the punters do get a bog standard apartment, it's definitely a nearly hotel experience , no frills and no apartments better than the rest.
We all have to focus on the real world , not the Alice in wonderland world , monopoly sole agency is just plain crazy. It is an incredible imposition on the basic straightforward business of individuals renting out their holiday homes.
Why would it ever be required to group them all together and run them collectively like a large single business ???
Just a quick question,who held the touristic license on your complex Nelson and how did he operate and what happened to him?
Just a quick question,who held the touristic license on your complex Nelson and how did he operate and what happened to him?
Shes already told us when she purchased on their complex that she'd decided not to bother with the onsite sole agent because some of the other Brits had given that advice. (albeit man in the pub advice)
Yep,I remember that,it was Apostles, chapter 7 verse 9.,but it doesn't tell me what happened to the agent on site.
Just a quick question,who held the touristic license on your complex Nelson and how did he operate and what happened to him?
the sole agent when we bought were the vendors, the original hotel company. They actually still hold the licence today, so we are not dormant touristic, the agent is the dormant one. The deal from the agent was I think 5000 euro per year they would pay , might have been 4000, and you got two weeks for yourself. As posted before I was warned off the agent by old hands who had been done by none payment from the agent going back to the nineties. The agent basically bust limited companies and failed to pay for around 6 months rent arrears.
Having had 10 years successful renting without the agent at high occupancy with many repeat customers, I think I can honestly testify that sole agents are a complete absurdity, an utterly unnecesary addition to the business of renting out a holiday home. In effect a price distortion to the holiday home renting market that no consumer should be forced to suffer.
I am sure europe will agree with that when this mad pantomime reaches full scrutiny at Euro level. Extra periferal status may be fully justified in some areas of economic commercial life, but how does it help to justify the monopoly sole agent insanity?
Peterrayner
08-09-2013, 09:57
is it not the case that there is a fourth category... Older touristic sites that where registered BEFORE the 1995 Law was introduced.
IE Royal Palm and Christian Sur where they have IIRC several legal on-site agents.
On the later owners are I believe allowed to let direct but must still be registered with one of the agencies.
essexeddie
08-09-2013, 16:49
is it not the case that there is a fourth category... Older touristic sites that where registered BEFORE the 1995 Law was introduced.
IE Royal Palm and Christian Sur where they have IIRC several legal on-site agents.
On the later owners are I believe allowed to let direct but must still be registered with one of the agencies.
I believe you may be correct on that.
.
delderek
08-09-2013, 19:43
Royal palm have only one agent. Oasis management.
Red Devil
08-09-2013, 21:38
Royal palm have only one agent. Oasis management.
But there are still owners on there who let independently and use their own cleaners.:)
Just to add, I'm out collecting rents and Torviscas is buzzing and so is San Telmo and CC Safari.
Just to add, I'm out collecting rents and Torviscas is buzzing and so is San Telmo and CC Safari.
How can this be? Tourism is dead apart from all inclusive and they don't leave the hotel!
I'm just waiting for the passenger numbers from the airport for August to be released, put them alongside the improvement in employment in August so as to ask someone a few questions
Back soon !!
Red Devil
09-09-2013, 00:00
Zzzzzzzzzzzing.going to bed now.
Angusjim
09-09-2013, 07:18
Just to add, I'm out collecting rents and Torviscas is buzzing and so is San Telmo and CC Safari.
Does lots of people = lots of money spent ? the all inclusive brigade often venture out to drink a half pint watch a show in a pub then scurry off back before the free bar shuts:tiphat:
Funny how the vast numbers of new tourists have barely affected unemployment figures or reopened all the closed premises all over the place if anything there are empty locals the ever
Make your existing staff more effective.
- - - - - - - - - - merged double post - - - - - - - - - -
Does lots of people = lots of money spent ? the all inclusive brigade often venture out to drink a half pint watch a show in a pub then scurry off back before the free bar shuts:tiphat:
No it doesn't Jim but you guys keep banging on about its importance.
Angusjim
09-09-2013, 08:12
Make you existing staff more effective.
- - - - - - - - - - merged double post - - - - - - - - - -
No it doesn't Jim but you guys keep banging on about its importance.
Don't think I have been banging on about numbers but I do know that in the area I normally frequent the shopping centre, restaurants & bars are defo quieter well that was during my last visit but maybe it has picked up since. When I make my 1st "legal" visit for years in December I will find out:c2:
Does lots of people = lots of money spent ? the all inclusive brigade often venture out to drink a half pint watch a show in a pub then scurry off back before the free bar shuts:tiphat:
"Footfall = the key to success" ..... Nelson
Angusjim
09-09-2013, 08:14
"Footfall = the key to success" ..... Nelson
His statement not mine and I have seen the light and am now going legal:wink:
His statement not mine and I have seen the light and am now going legal:wink:
Without a doubt better for the islands economy.
Angusjim
09-09-2013, 08:34
Without a doubt better for the islands economy.
Saint Jim the patron saint of legal letting:laugh:
Peterrayner
09-09-2013, 08:47
Without a doubt better for the islands economy.
I will ask in the El Galeon later this month :)
Funny how the vast numbers of new tourists have barely affected unemployment figures or reopened all the closed premises all over the place if anything there are empty locals the ever
Have you looked at, for example, a typical UK town centre High Street recently - hardly a closed shop unit to be seen - not!
The world moves on.
And do you consider a drop in unemployment of 4,294 in August compared to July (-1.5%) and a fall of around 1% year-on-year "barely" ??
No, it's not stunning, and the starting base numbers are painfully high, but it is positive and certainly not "funny"
But realistically you can not in invent holiday home letting and Internet based holiday let advertisers. The canaries has to accept and embrace this part of the tourist market.
For anyone to imagine you can opt out of that and prosper is just insane
But realistically you can not in invent holiday home letting and Internet based holiday let advertisers. The canaries has to accept and embrace this part of the tourist market.
For anyone to imagine you can opt out of that and prosper is just insane
Why ??
Given their aim is a more up-market clientèle, they are quite within their rights to legislate to bring that about; even the Bolkenstein Directive acknowledges that individual member states can pass local laws to protect what they see as vital important services and you're the one who keeps banging on about how important the Letting Industry is to Tenerife.
I am just saying that in reality people renting out their holiday homes is just a normal uncontroversial trend.the debate about the canary visitor numbers holding up despite the letting crackdown is just silly. It should not be a contest , is the economy going to develop well without the holiday home sector?
It's plain daft to even open that up for discussion . Holiday home renting and the holiday home advertising sites are part and parcel of tourism today in 2013. They are a part of the overall market , they are not going to take over , that would be as silly as thinking they are going to cease altogether in the canaries, but the sector and the holidays they offer will grow and continue.
To imagine otherwise you would have to have a flat earth Luddite mentality and think the moon is made of green cheese
weird then that major cities are banning private lettings..... doreen gave some examples recently, some were: New York, Amsterdam, Berlin.......
Don't forget Westminster , also on Doreen's list but it turned out you just needed to apply for a permit from the council. The banned lets you mention are residential lets. There are millions of holiday lets around the world that are acceptable and of course uncontroversial and normal. Look on the letting sites, chose sunshine stays or rural retreats , loads of destinations around Europe and the world.
It's not going to disappear , it's normal and uncontroversial . Anyone who thinks the canaries can actually be excluded from this , or should want to be is a flat earth denier with a Luddite mentality .
Angusjim
09-09-2013, 15:41
Why ??
Given their aim is a more up-market clientèle, they are quite within their rights to legislate to bring that about; even the Bolkenstein Directive acknowledges that individual member states can pass local laws to protect what they see as vital important services and you're the one who keeps banging on about how important the Letting Industry is to Tenerife.
Bob as a matter on interest what in your opinion is a more " upmarket clientèle " will they for example ban Ryanair, or ban people who stay in certain postcodes in the UK :lol::c2:
Peterrayner
09-09-2013, 15:54
weird then that major cities are banning private lettings..... doreen gave some examples recently, some were: New York, Amsterdam, Berlin.......
Its not wierd really. It is to be expected.
The authorities have seen an expanding market develop and have decided that they want the action.
Thats a normal development in this day and age. After all they provide the infrastructure and the developments, and to be fair they did announce their intentions and gave plenty of notice of their intentions to grab the market.
My only real beef is the punative and ruinous levels of the fines imposed.
AFAIAA No one Illegally letting killed or maimed anybody. People who cause death by driving carlessly or under the infuence recieve far less severe punishments.
For a first offence for a single private owner then the fines ought to be set at the simple level ie 1,500E
but for a proven second offence then OK raise it to the maximim grave level of 30,000E
Bob as a matter on interest what in your opinion is a more " upmarket clientèle " will they for example ban Ryanair, or ban people who stay in certain postcodes in the UK :lol::c2:
As an end-user of the services under discussion, given that a lot of holiday companies use budget airlines to allow them to offer flights from your local airport they wont ban them.
What I really meant to say is that they are trying to steer people to more upmarket accommodation.
What the government are trying to bring in is a control system which guarantees that anyone renting a property or booking into a hotel can be sure that that property will actually have be of a guaranteed minimum standard.
I've stayed in both legal & illegal accommodation on Tenerife and I can assure you that not all illegal accommodation is high standard and not all legal accommodation is low standard but there is a huge gulf between the best level and the worst level and I suspect that this is the area that the government are actually trying to address.
Don't forget Westminster , also on Doreen's list but it turned out you just needed to apply for a permit from the council. The banned lets you mention are residential lets. There are millions of holiday lets around the world that are acceptable and of course uncontroversial and normal. Look on the letting sites, chose sunshine stays or rural retreats , loads of destinations around Europe and the world.
.
Not quite .... to refresh your memory .... http://transact.westminster.gov.uk/docstores/publications_store/Short_Term_Letting_Guide_2008.pdf
Some properties could get planning permission after an inspection, but I believe the majority could not (as certainly was the case in the block I lived in, where there were notices about 20,000 stg fines)
Bob as a matter on interest what in your opinion is a more " upmarket clientèle " will they for example ban Ryanair, or ban people who stay in certain postcodes in the UK :lol::c2:
No Scottish
cheers
x
- - - - - - - - - - merged double post - - - - - - - - - -
Its not wierd really. It is to be expected.
The authorities have seen an expanding market develop and have decided that they want the action.
Thats a normal development in this day and age. After all they provide the infrastructure and the developments, and to be fair they did announce their intentions and gave plenty of notice of their intentions to grab the market.
My only real beef is the punative and ruinous levels of the fines imposed.
AFAIAA No one Illegally letting killed or maimed anybody. People who cause death by driving carlessly or under the infuence recieve far less severe punishments.
For a first offence for a single private owner then the fines ought to be set at the simple level ie 1,500E
but for a proven second offence then OK raise it to the maximim grave level of 30,000E
A fines of €600 would stop nothing, Spain realized that with Building licenses years ago, you paid your fine and that was it
The fine was WAY lower than getting permissions and projects made up. So most people just paid the fine.
The fine alone should be a deterrent because a Law alone isn't, €18,000 is collect quantity for those who couldn't be bothered to obey the law.
Repeat offenders should have their dwelling confiscated.
Funny how laws get applied to particular groups of people for instance the Russians who are coming in with suitcases full of cash and buying villas apartments all sorts of property despite the money laundering laws instead the government is going to hand out residencias to people who spend over a certain amount just one of the laws that's being totally ignored
Peterrayner
10-09-2013, 03:19
Laws should be proportionate and applied fairly :)
Lets hope the courts are fair and reasonable.
But realistically you can not in invent holiday home letting and Internet based holiday let advertisers. The canaries has to accept and embrace this part of the tourist market.
For anyone to imagine you can opt out of that and prosper is just insane
But you can buy a holiday home to let in the Canaries - you just need to do it within the local Canarian law, or face the consequences if you think you know better and choose to operate under the radar. If the local laws and rules don't suit, then you don't do it.
Nelsons complex is a sole agent run complex
junglejim
10-09-2013, 12:01
Nice to see the Canaries' Hotels cashing in on their popularity and the turmoil in Med. by having the highest rises in prices in Spain !
http://www.diariodeavisos.com/2013/09/canarias-donde-mas-sube-precio-hoteles/?utm_source=buffer&utm_campaign=Buffer&utm_content=buffer29ff4&utm_medium=facebook
Angusjim
10-09-2013, 12:50
No Scottish
cheers
x
- - - - - - - - - - merged double post - - - - - - - - - -
A fines of €600 would stop nothing, Spain realized that with Building licenses years ago, you paid your fine and that was it
The fine was WAY lower than getting permissions and projects made up. So most people just paid the fine.
The fine alone should be a deterrent because a Law alone isn't, €18,000 is collect quantity for those who couldn't be bothered to obey the law.
Repeat offenders should have their dwelling confiscated.
Yer a wee rascal Mark without the Scots how would the illegal renters survive:lol::wink:
- - - - - - - - - - merged double post - - - - - - - - - -
Well thats me booked up for Easter next year now, in yet another legal complex ( allegedly the best complex Los Cristianos ) to add to my legal jaunt in December :c2::c2:
Peterrayner
10-09-2013, 14:44
Well thats me booked up for Easter next year now, in yet another legal complex ( allegedly the best complex Los Cristianos )
Dont leave us hanging Jim....which complex ?????? would it be opposite the Arona Gran by any chance.
junglejim
10-09-2013, 20:12
Yer a wee rascal Mark without the Scots how would the illegal renters survive:lol::wink:
- - - - - - - - - - merged double post - - - - - - - - - -
Well thats me booked up for Easter next year now, in yet another legal complex ( allegedly the best complex Los Cristianos ) to add to my legal jaunt in December :c2::c2:
Will we have to come to the Hoops Bar for our Bridies ?
I would say doing there best to kill the golden egg
slodgedad
10-09-2013, 22:47
I would say doing there best to kill the golden egg
Not trying to kill it, but claim it.
I should have said kill the goose thar lays the golden egg
Just the perception that Tenerife is an expensive place to go on holiday will be enough to deter many people
Though visitor numbers may have risen slightly ( and that is still not clear cut) due to the various problems in many other areas Egypt turkey most of North Africa I would have expected to see a much larger rise here
Angusjim
11-09-2013, 07:28
Dont leave us hanging Jim....which complex ?????? would it be opposite the Arona Gran by any chance.
Peter I think you know the answer :wink:
- - - - - - - - - - merged double post - - - - - - - - - -
Will we have to come to the Hoops Bar for our Bridies ?
JJ I will be coming down to the Rover to have a beer with you so probs with bridie deliveries:yum:
Fivepence
11-09-2013, 08:07
Peter I think you know the answer :wink:
Is it expensive to stay there Jim, I've heard you need to be Loaded to stay there? :laugh:
Angusjim
11-09-2013, 08:46
Is it expensive to stay there Jim, I've heard you need to be Loaded to stay there? :laugh:
Not really expensive as I have a "loaded" friend but you have to have the correct UK post code keeps the rif raf out don't want any of those working class types:lol:
Ecky Thump
11-09-2013, 08:52
Not really expensive as I have a "loaded" friend but you have to have the correct UK post code keeps the rif raf out don't want any of those working class types:lol:
My sister in law has a DD postcode, is she banned.....hopefully!:jumping:
Angusjim
11-09-2013, 08:55
:wink:
My sister in law has a DD postcode, is she banned.....hopefully!:jumping:
Only DD10 ---:wink:
really looking for postcodes that start for example CM better class of people:lol:
DDs are always welcome lol
Peterrayner
11-09-2013, 10:50
DDs are always welcome lol
especially around the pool :wink:
Angusjim
11-09-2013, 11:39
DDs are always welcome lol
Sadly I am getting there:lol:
Ecky Thump
11-09-2013, 12:34
Sadly I am getting there:lol:
Unlike you Jim, she developed fast!!:wink:
Angusjim
11-09-2013, 13:13
[QUOTE=Ecky Thump;318236]Unlike you Jim, she developed fast!!:wink
??????
DDs are always welcome lol
especially around the pool :wink:
Sadly I am getting there:lol:
Unlike you Jim, she developed fast!!:wink:
[QUOTE=Ecky Thump;318236]Unlike you Jim, she developed fast!!:wink
??????
I think he meant you were slow developing the meaning of my sisters DD's.:cheeky:
Just read an interesting article in Tenerife news 23rd August edition to 5th September . The article quotes a visitor number increase of 3.2per cent , I think number is July 2012. However the article also says that jobs in the tourist sector have fallen by 8 percent in the second quarter of this year. There is talk in the article about I increase in spending per tourist etc, but on balance it's giving a mixed message.
One very significant fact given in the article is that the low cost airlines have seen a reduction in passengers to the canaries of 26.2per cent in the second quarter of this year.
I would honestly say that these low cost passengers the 26.2percent decrease , will largely be due to the letting crackdown. They represent the ones I have spoken off, potential customers now unable to book to the canaries on the Internet holiday home sites. The canaries could and should have had these custermers as well as the up market ones.
Without them all the canary economy is being held back and unemployment in the islands is being made higher than in need be.
junglejim
11-09-2013, 17:45
Someone doesn´t agree Nelson!
Employment in Tourist sector is up according to this article today !
http://www.diariodeavisos.com/2013/09/empleo-en-sector-turistico-tenerife-crece-154-en-agosto/
Someone doesn´t agree Nelson!
Employment in Tourist sector is up according to this article today !
http://www.diariodeavisos.com/2013/09/empleo-en-sector-turistico-tenerife-crece-154-en-agosto/
and I suspect the drop in low cost passengers owes more to the fact that they are no longer low cost than the fact that they have cracked down on the illegal lettings.
All opinions are valued. The same paper has another article which indicates asshotel sort of trying to justify their job creation record to the canary govt. it's as if the govt had got angry with them for not creating more jobs in response to the crackdown .
I think you will find bob mac, that all the low cost planes have been busy and none have been grounded Europe wide in that quarter. The punters will have used the Internet holiday home sites and booked their choices in even greater numbers summer 2013, this market is growing . It's just they have been denied the canaries, the canaries are out of that shop window.
Criminal insanity
essexeddie
11-09-2013, 19:36
Just read an interesting article in Tenerife news 23rd August edition to 5th September . The article quotes a visitor number increase of 3.2per cent , I think number is July 2012. However the article also says that jobs in the tourist sector have fallen by 8 percent in the second quarter of this year. There is talk in the article about I increase in spending per tourist etc, but on balance it's giving a mixed message.
One very significant fact given in the article is that the low cost airlines have seen a reduction in passengers to the canaries of 26.2per cent in the second quarter of this year.
I would honestly say that these low cost passengers the 26.2percent decrease , will largely be due to the letting crackdown. They represent the ones I have spoken off, potential customers now unable to book to the canaries on the Internet holiday home sites. The canaries could and should have had these custermers as well as the up market ones.
Without them all the canary economy is being held back and unemployment in the islands is being made higher than in need be.
Quite possible as I have turned down countless enquiries since I have stopped letting, two today in fact. I don't recommend any other complexes as I don't get anything out of it so why bother.
Most are opting for Greece now.
.
All I'm saying until next time is, John the Solicitor AKA TonyM went quiet quickly.
essexeddie
11-09-2013, 19:50
All I'm saying until next time is, John the Solicitor AKA TonyM went quiet quickly.
Even quickly quietly
.
Albatros
11-09-2013, 20:11
Quite possible as I have turned down countless enquiries since I have stopped letting, two today in fact. I don't recommend any other complexes as I don't get anything out of it so why bother.
Rather churlish attitude. Surely being helpful to the enquirer is common courtesy and would also be a potential contribution to the ongoing economic growth of the island. Thereby increasing the value of your investment.
essexeddie
11-09-2013, 20:16
Rather churlish attitude. Surely being helpful to the enquirer is common courtesy and would also be a potential contribution to the ongoing economic growth of the island. Thereby increasing the value of your investment.
Yep! your possibly right!
.
Yep! your possibly right!
.
Plus the only way to recompense you for passing on clients would be a "back hander" as you aren't a registered business.
If you set up as a travel agent or tourist intermediary and could provide an invoice for your commission I for one would happily pay you.
slodgedad
11-09-2013, 21:46
Even............
Odd (reply, that is):agree:
The fact remains, 26 per cent fewer passengers for the quarter is incredible. That's an enormous amount of self catering footfall . That will have made a large negative impact on the economy
Just read an interesting article in Tenerife news 23rd August edition to 5th September . The article quotes a visitor number increase of 3.2per cent , I think number is July 2012. However the article also says that jobs in the tourist sector have fallen by 8 percent in the second quarter of this year. There is talk in the article about I increase in spending per tourist etc, but on balance it's giving a mixed message.
One very significant fact given in the article is that the low cost airlines have seen a reduction in passengers to the canaries of 26.2per cent in the second quarter of this year.
I would honestly say that these low cost passengers the 26.2percent decrease , will largely be due to the letting crackdown. They represent the ones I have spoken off, potential customers now unable to book to the canaries on the Internet holiday home sites. The canaries could and should have had these custermers as well as the up market ones.
Without them all the canary economy is being held back and unemployment in the islands is being made higher than in need be.
Just checking Tenerife News online, I had difficulty loading the edition you refer to nelson, but the following one has the headline "Green Shoots" for the Canaries, Visitor numbers to break all records.
Trying to figure out the 26.2 % reduction in low cost airlines, perhaps it is a reference to this from 2012
http://www.ryanair.com/en/news/ryanair-announces-canary-island-cuts-after-regional-govt-reneges-on-growth-agreeement
As a result of these cuts, Ryanair’s Canary Island traffic will fall by over 26% from 4.35m to 3.2m p.a. with the loss of over 1,100 local “on site” jobs
Luckily, Ryanair has changed their minds somewhat for Winter 2013 http://www.routesonline.com/news/29/breaking-news/197302/the-winter-sun-shines-on-the-canary-islands-as-ryanair-boosts-schedule/?video=2546691046001
Something to note from the routes cut or added, is that the majority are not from the traditional British market.
yes Doreen I feel sure that the 26% reduction in low cost passenger is the uk market.The article is refering to the second quarter of this year.
Its curious that we are seeing headlines for record breaking visitor numbers yet we know unemployment is so high in the canaries? As I have said just recently a boom in hotel customers is very welcome but the canaries need not have attacked the holiday home letting market. The canary economy should have had both the hotel visitor boom and a strong holiday home sector.
The 26 % decrease in low cost passengers is alarming, that is canary wide , all the islands. If you consider the number of flights normally coming down from all the uk airports , all the low cost carriers, easyjet,ryan air, monarch, and then take away 26% of it.
This is for sure the predicted downturn due to the now dead internet ads that was predicted for summer 2013. Its a massive loss of ecoconomic activity and employment. I think that the canary govt will respond to this , they can see the numbers, many trade groups also will be aware that this reduction is not normal or sustainable.
erm??
Unemployment down, and passengers travelling through Tenerife South airport up - all according to the official figures, not some newspaper journalist.
Do you live on a different planet to the rest of us ???????????????????????????????
erm??
Unemployment down, and passengers travelling through Tenerife South airport up - all according to the official figures, not some newspaper journalist.
Do you live on a different planet to the rest of us ???????????????????????????????
I hope this question is rhetorical ...
universal
12-09-2013, 12:33
NUMBER OF VISITORS
According to incoming tourism statistics drawn up by the Tenerife Cabildo (Island Government), the following are figures for visitors over the last few years:
2000 = 4.730.290
2001 = 4.880.039
2002 = 4.837.435
2003 = 4.898.003
2004 = 5.016.277
2005 = 5.093.732
2006 = 5.451.013
2007 = 5.278.784
2008 = 5.292.327
2009 = 4.707.782
2010 = 4.831.325
2011 = 5.160.203
2012 = 4.900.817
essexeddie
12-09-2013, 13:37
Plus the only way to recompense you for passing on clients would be a "back hander" as you aren't a registered business.
If you set up as a travel agent or tourist intermediary and could provide an invoice for your commission I for one would happily pay you.
I'm sorry but I just cant be bothered, but I have to say when our complex is full I have put a few through to Paloma Beach when they are persistent just to get them off my back. In fact I put my cousin there next March.
.
yes Doreen I feel sure that the 26% reduction in low cost passenger is the uk market.The article is refering to the second quarter of this year.
Its curious that we are seeing headlines for record breaking visitor numbers yet we know unemployment is so high in the canaries? As I have said just recently a boom in hotel customers is very welcome but the canaries need not have attacked the holiday home letting market. The canary economy should have had both the hotel visitor boom and a strong holiday home sector.
The 26 % decrease in low cost passengers is alarming, that is canary wide , all the islands. If you consider the number of flights normally coming down from all the uk airports , all the low cost carriers, easyjet,ryan air, monarch, and then take away 26% of it.
This is for sure the predicted downturn due to the now dead internet ads that was predicted for summer 2013. Its a massive loss of ecoconomic activity and employment. I think that the canary govt will respond to this , they can see the numbers, many trade groups also will be aware that this reduction is not normal or sustainable.
nelson, you are going to have to quote that article to me in more detail ... I have tried to read issue 482 online, but it is very hard to enlarge. All I found so far is an article on "Why Tenerife loves the Luxury Market" (so much higher spend), Easyjet adding Newcastle, so will transport 6% more passengers from the UK to Tenerife than in 2012 and "Ashotel Anger" where the Hotel Federation say there are 11.5% more employed in the industry compared to 2009
nelson, you are going to have to quote that article to me in more detail ... I have tried to read issue 482 online, but it is very hard to enlarge. All I found so far is an article on "Why Tenerife loves the Luxury Market" (so much higher spend), Easyjet adding Newcastle, so will transport 6% more passengers from the UK to Tenerife than in 2012 and "Ashotel Anger" where the Hotel Federation say there are 11.5% more employed in the industry compared to 2009
Will try to get you more detail , I think it was an article on page 13. Given the mixed messages we are hearing and reading, with single figure increases in hotel visitors and minor changes compares with a year ago , these massive decreases , 26 per cent , amounts to a huge problem. If hotel occupancy is holding up and slightly up this massive shortfall has held back what could have been a very strong economic recovery for the whole canaries.
If we consider around 10 uk airports with several low cost operators sending multiple daily flights to the canaries, who knows, this downturn might amount to around 25,000 lost visitors per month each one around 400 euro per week into the canary economy
Have read so many so called official figures and they all vary Immensely I'm at aloes as to know what to believe
All I can say is that in my view while there are quite a lot of people about restaurant and bar trade still appear quiet
- - - - - - - - - - merged double post - - - - - - - - - -
I do know that among my friends in the uk Tenerife seldom is mentioned as a destination the old image and reputation of las Americas still lingers on
Will try to get you more detail , I think it was an article on page 13. Given the mixed messages we are hearing and reading, with single figure increases in hotel visitors and minor changes compares with a year ago , these massive decreases , 26 per cent , amounts to a huge problem. If hotel occupancy is holding up and slightly up this massive shortfall has held back what could have been a very strong economic recovery for the whole canaries.
If we consider around 10 uk airports with several low cost operators sending multiple daily flights to the canaries, who knows, this downturn might amount to around 25,000 lost visitors per month each one around 400 euro per week into the canary economy
Ok, found it ... low cost appear to be losing ground in favour of the regular airlines
... that would be the likes of BA with their 5 times a week flights to Tenerife, Iberia Express from mainland Spain etc. Overall passenger numbers are NOT down 26.2%, so no lost 25,000 visitors per month !! The article is based on a call to bring back incentive payments/ reduced airport fees so as to lower airfares.
Have read so many so called official figures and they all vary Immensely I'm at aloes as to know what to believe
All I can say is that in my view while there are quite a lot of people about restaurant and bar trade still appear quiet
- - - - - - - - - - merged double post - - - - - - - - - -
I do know that among my friends in the uk Tenerife seldom is mentioned as a destination the old image and reputation of las Americas still lingers on
In which case nobody could blame them for wanting to upgrade the place.
I get the feeling they'll spoil it for themselves though. Trade has just started to pick up and what do they do? Put the prices up because they have a captive audience!! The greed has already started. The legal apartments won't be far behind them. ..Time will tell.
Just read an interesting article in Tenerife news 23rd August edition to 5th September . The article quotes a visitor number INCREASE of 3.2per cent , I think number is July 2012. However the article also says that jobs in the tourist sector have fallen by 8 percent in the second quarter of this year. There is talk in the article about I increase in spending per tourist etc, but on balance it's giving a mixed message.
One very significant fact given in the article is that the low cost airlines have seen a REDUCTION in passengers to the canaries of 26.2per cent in the second quarter of this year.
I would honestly say that these low cost passengers the 26.2percent decrease , will largely be due to the letting crackdown. They represent the ones I have spoken off, potential customers now unable to book to the canaries on the Internet holiday home sites. The canaries could and should have had these custermers as well as the up market ones.
Without them all the canary economy is being held back and unemployment in the islands is being made higher than in need be.
Nelson - can you explain to us how a reduction of 26.2% in low cost passenger numbers translates into a 3.2% increase in visitor numbers ??
Ok, found it ... low cost appear to be losing ground in favour of the regular airlines
... that would be the likes of BA with their 5 times a week flights to Tenerife, Iberia Express from mainland Spain etc. Overall passenger numbers are NOT down 26.2%, so no lost 25,000 visitors per month !! The article is based on a call to bring back incentive payments/ reduced airport fees so as to lower airfares.
Yes overall the article sort of try's to make a positive spin out of the numbers, it's as if as you say the upmarket flights are increasing and the low cost ones are decreasing. If we saw the headline low cost flights to the canaries down 26per cent in three months then that's more of a negative.
But that's the reality , hotel occupancy is strong and overall visitor numbers are holding up well. Only mess up is that the low cost passengers are down 26per cent in the second quarter of 2013, that's a disaster. What the canary economy needed was all the hotel customers and all the low cost holiday home customers.
Given that amount of combined tourists that would have seen a significant reduction in canary unemployment .
- - - - - - - - - - merged double post - - - - - - - - - -
Nelson - can you explain to us how a reduction of 26.2% in low cost passenger numbers translates into a 3.2% increase in visitor numbers ??
Yes it's maths, overall visitors are up, the 3.2per cent, that's overall, that means a strong surge of hotel customers, but at the same time low cost passengers are down 26 per cent. It's complicated as we don't know the monthly total for low cost. Could be 26per cent of 100,000 or 26 per cent of 50,000. We don't even know the total low cost market per year. But that market must be around two thirds the total holiday home renting sector.
universal
12-09-2013, 16:02
From the same source as above the hotel capacity figures show a steady increase whilst the self catering sector shows a steady decline.
Comparing the figures for 2003 for example we see a record of 101,000 plus in the s/c sector as against 78,000 in hotel accommodation, by last year these figures had reversed the trend to 76,000 in s/c and 88,000 in hotels.
Yes overall the article sort of try's to make a positive spin out of the numbers, it's as if as you say the upmarket flights are increasing and the low cost ones are decreasing. If we saw the headline low cost flights to the canaries down 26per cent in three months then that's more of a negative.
But that's the reality , hotel occupancy is strong and overall visitor numbers are holding up well. Only mess up is that the low cost passengers are down 26per cent in the second quarter of 2013, that's a disaster. What the canary economy needed was all the hotel customers and all the low cost holiday home customers.
Given that amount of combined tourists that would have seen a significant reduction in canary unemployment .
Yes it's maths, overall visitors are up, the 3.2per cent, that's overall, that means a strong surge of hotel customers, but at the same time low cost passengers are down 26 per cent. It's complicated as we don't know the monthly total for low cost. Could be 26per cent of 100,000 or 26 per cent of 50,000. We don't even know the total low cost market per year. But that market must be around two thirds the total holiday home renting sector.
So here's the Chamber of Commerce press release that the Tenerife News journalist was referring to:
http://www.camaratenerife.com/noticia.cfm?id=2509
La distribución de los turistas extranjeros en las Islas apunta a un descenso del 26,2% en el volumen de visitantes que se desplazaron en compañías aéreas de bajo coste (1.011.015 pasajeros) y a un importante avance de los trasladados en compañías aéreas tradicionales, que crecieron anualmente un 56,4% al mover 1.183.174 turistas extranjeros durante el segundo trimestre de 2013
Low cost down 26.2 (1.011m) , regular up 56.4 (1.183m)!!
And you will note the 26% is exactly what Ryanair said they would cut until the subventions were brought back at the airports (nothing to do with illegal lettings, all to do with the Ryanair cost model)
So here's the Chamber of Commerce press release that the Tenerife News journalist was referring to:
http://www.camaratenerife.com/noticia.cfm?id=2509
La distribución de los turistas extranjeros en las Islas apunta a un descenso del 26,2% en el volumen de visitantes que se desplazaron en compañías aéreas de bajo coste (1.011.015 pasajeros) y a un importante avance de los trasladados en compañías aéreas tradicionales, que crecieron anualmente un 56,4% al mover 1.183.174 turistas extranjeros durante el segundo trimestre de 2013
Low cost down 26.2 (1.011m) , regular up 56.4 (1.183m)!!
And you will note the 26% is exactly what Ryanair said they would cut until the subventions were brought back at the airports (nothing to do with illegal lettings, all to do with the Ryanair cost model)
So annoying when an irrational poorly thought out argument is dismantled so quickly....
Think you might be confusing the maths,surely the article is saying there is a 26 per cent decrease in all low cost passengers , not just Ryanair passengers?
I should give up Nellie - you are obviously so desperate to find support in favour of your illegal activities you are reading what you want to believe, not the reality.
IF there had been a 26 % reduction in flights into this and the other islands then I suspect it would have been noticed, instead though, the number of passengers (i.e. people who account for footfall) through the airport rose in August - up around 1 more percent
xx.
I can't believe that we are still "debating" with Nelson.You could have a more stimulating argument with a 4 year old.
Peterrayner
13-09-2013, 11:40
I can't believe that we are still "debating" with Nelson.You could have a more stimulating argument with a 4 year old.
If you dont like it sell up and move ......?
JA is reporting some "astonishing" news is due from the Alocta lawyers later today and thats not a word I expect her to use lightly.
If you dont like it sell up and move ......?
JA is reporting some "astonishing" news is due from the Alocta lawyers later today and thats not a word I expect her to use lightly.
Probably the government has dropped all the action - nothing surprises me lol
Altamira
13-09-2013, 14:54
JA is reporting some "astonishing" news is due from the Alocta lawyers later today and thats not a word I expect her to use lightly.[/QUOTE]
New Tourist Law Hopefully they have decided to redraft the new tourist laws, because if it meant what it states it could easily have been a disaster for some.
Probably the government has dropped all the action - nothing surprises me lol
Christ - don't say that; Nelson will be unbearable if that happens
I always agreed with nelly anyhow
x
Ecky Thump
13-09-2013, 17:04
I always agreed with nelly anyhow
x
Was that when you said...Pigs might fly!:laugh:
Was that when you said...Pigs might fly!:laugh:
That wasn't exactly what was said - what was actually said was "Oink Flap, Oink Flap"
I've just got wind of what it's all about, some people will be happy.
I've just got wind of what it's all about, some people will be happy.
But will Nelson be among the happy ones ??
I don't believe she'll even be truly happy
I don't believe she'll even be truly happy
Is that even a mistype, surely you meant ever
Peterrayner
13-09-2013, 17:30
For a first offence for a single private owner then the fines ought to be set at the simple level ie 1,500E
but for a proven second offence then OK raise it to the maximim grave level of 30,000E
fingers crossed :)
What's the news then?
Not quite, but I think Dumbledore comes back to life..:laugh:
Peterrayner
14-09-2013, 07:38
Its looking as if we will not get any further info from the lawyers till Monday. The suspense is killing me :)
well whatever the news is , either a massive step towards normal western europeon democratic standards, or another insane Robert Mugabwe style fine or ruling we are all just going to have to wait and see. All I can say is that even if liberal democratic standards are not returning to the canaries with this news people stay calm. At the end of the day thats exactly how this will end, it just may take a little longer as the cases move through the spanish national and the europeon courts.
You could never fine ordinary people 18,000 euros for their letting anyway, not in western europe. A mad dictatorship yes , but not a modern western europeon democracy and eu member.
In the meantime we must consider the 26% fall in low cost passengers to the canaries in the second quarter of 2013, thats all the islands. In my opinion thats the predicted holiday home market famine, the summer of 2013 with the canaries taken off the internet advert sites, the canaries now removed from the holiday home rental internet advertised market. We hear hotel occupancy is holding up well, so overall visitor numbers are about the same, therefore to have lost the holiday home customers has created a lost oppurtunity to help the canary economy and reduce canary unemployment.
This crazy situation has to be put right eventually.
Peterrayner
14-09-2013, 11:51
Think the Mugabe reference is out of order
JA`s post was that the news is both astonishing and positive :) but isn't able to give full details just atm.
I suspect myself it might impinge on touristic owners only, unless there is some judicial development on fines generally.
Altamira
14-09-2013, 12:15
JA`s post was that the news is both astonishing and positive :) but isn't able to give full details just atm.
I suspect myself it might impinge on touristic owners only, unless there is some judicial development on fines generally.
Alotca Lawyers Hello Peter Rayner, I have read the JA post, she does mention astonishing but no mention of positive It is interesting that the major announcement is supposed to be coming from the Alotca Lawyers, perhaps it concerns other aspects of their involvement!
Think the Mugabe reference is out of order
JA`s post was that the news is both astonishing and positive :) but isn't able to give full details just atm.
I suspect myself it might impinge on touristic owners only, unless there is some judicial development on fines generally.
you are fully entitled to your opinion. I feel that for the canary govt, a democratic western govt, to have imposed the original 18,000 was completely over the top and absurd. Imagine the shock / stress they have put on so many people with that wild high level of fine. In all the circumstances a lower penalty , whatever the rights and wrongs of the 1995 letting laws, would have seemed proportionate and reasonable for all these first offenders.
Thats my opinion Peter, a 1500 euro fine would have been normal in western europeon democracies. 18,000 euros is to my mind the style of Robert Mugawbe govt and Idi Amin.
Peterrayner
14-09-2013, 12:48
The Amin/Mugabe style would have been to drag the ex-pat owners out of their homes in the middle of the night, murder some and brutalise the rest.
Your outrageous comparisons with these evil villains adds nothing to your assertions.
- - - - - - - - - - merged double post - - - - - - - - - -
Alotca Lawyers Hello Peter Rayner, I have read the JA post, she does mention astonishing but no mention of positive It is interesting that the major announcement is supposed to be coming from the Alotca Lawyers, perhaps it concerns other aspects of their involvement!
read the full text including the various reply postings :wink:
Think the Mugabe reference is out of order
I completely agree Peter. Banter is all very well, but such comments go way beyond that and are totally unacceptable :(
The Amin/Mugabe style would have been to drag the ex-pat owners out of their homes in the middle of the night, murder some and brutalise the rest.
Your outrageous comparisons with these evil villains adds nothing to your assertions.
- - - - - - - - - - merged double post - - - - - - - - - -
read the full text including the various reply postings :wink:
No I think you are taking a shallow view of the comparison,making reference to their murderous antics . Along with that type of butchery these characters run their economies for their own gain and the personal profit of their cronies. This results in economic disaster and great suffering for their populations .
In my opinion the lack of proper consideration by the canary govt for the full economic impact of the letting crackdown was more like the actions of the aforementioned dictators, just considering the welfare of their cronies.a full economic analysis was surely required, how could 900,000 beds be attacked without considering the impact throughout the economy?
So to be clear , I don't see the canary govt as a Robert Mugabe set up because they make violent physical attacks on their opponents, but their initial fine levels and economic cronyism put them in that camp rather than the camp they should be in, enlightened liberal democracy
canary boy
14-09-2013, 15:07
yes its positive news but how positive?
No I think you are taking a shallow view of the comparison,making reference to their murderous antics . Along with that type of butchery these characters run their economies for their own gain and the personal profit of their cronies. This results in economic disaster and great suffering for their populations .
In my opinion the lack of proper consideration by the canary govt for the full economic impact of the letting crackdown was more like the actions of the aforementioned dictators, just considering the welfare of their cronies.a full economic analysis was surely required, how could 900,000 beds be attacked without considering the impact throughout the economy?
So to be clear , I don't see the canary govt as a Robert Mugabe set up because they make violent physical attacks on their opponents, but their initial fine levels and economic cronyism put them in that camp rather than the camp they should be in, enlightened liberal democracy
Another nelson FAIL
you are fully entitled to your opinion. I feel that for the canary govt, a democratic western govt, to have imposed the original 18,000 was completely over the top and absurd. Imagine the shock / stress they have put on so many people with that wild high level of fine. In all the circumstances a lower penalty , whatever the rights and wrongs of the 1995 letting laws, would have seemed proportionate and reasonable for all these first offenders.
Thats my opinion Peter, a 1500 euro fine would have been normal in western europeon democracies. 18,000 euros is to my mind the style of Robert Mugawbe govt and Idi Amin.
I think Robert Mugawbe would have had you shot for not paying taxes never mind giving you a fine which amounts to less than the tax you should have paid!
Nelson gets shot every time he posts on this thread...:respect:
junglejim
14-09-2013, 20:15
Nelson SHOULD get shot every time he posts on this thread...:respect:
Fixed that for you !
canary boy
14-09-2013, 20:38
have you lot any idea if the announcement is favourable, how elated nelson is going to be ?
Well it won't just be me, there are tens of thousands of others who will have got to the end of the storm. Whether that's happened now or we journey on longer the eventual outcome is not or ever was in doubt. The absurdity of the canary govt imposing huge fines on ordinary people , first offenders , could never have been achieved in law. The absurdity of having laws demanded a monopoly overload have sole tourist rental rights over the freehold owners of their holiday homes , well that's just crackers.
None of that was ever going to survive a legal challenge through the Spanish courts and Europe. When victory does come , either now or later I will celebrate, but I never ever doubted that victory would come and that holiday letting in the canaries would return to bring prosperity to the islands economy.
Oh nelson, im on the same boat as you im praying that they realise excessive fines for first time offenses is that they have cocked up big time
Albatros
15-09-2013, 04:54
I am having difficulty with the concept of 1st offence.
My understanding is that the individuals involved in illegal letting have been letting their apartment many times.
If someone commits 50 burglaries and is caught, is that a 1st offence or were they caught on their 50th offence?
I am having difficulty with the concept of 1st offence.
My understanding is that the individuals involved in illegal letting have been letting their apartment many times.
If someone commits 50 burglaries and is caught, is that a 1st offence or were they caught on their 50th offence?
I think you have to allow for the fact that this law has been largely ignored by the authorities for many years right up until the recent clampdown. If someone has been letting for the last ten years quite freely, it would feel like the norm don't you think?
I think you have to allow for the fact that this law has been largely ignored by the authorities for many years right up until the recent clampdown. If someone has been letting for the last ten years quite freely, it would feel like the norm don't you think?
I think you have to allow for the fact that this law has been largely ignored by the public for many years right up until the recent clampdown. If someone has been letting for the last ten years quite freely, it would feel like a party don't you think?
Feel free to change any of my words into ones that you understand....:laugh:
Please make a valid argument instead of a epic fail statement.
thanks for coming
Angusjim
15-09-2013, 08:32
I think you have to allow for the fact that this law has been largely ignored by the public for many years right up until the recent clampdown. If someone has been letting for the last ten years quite freely, it would feel like a party don't you think?
and totally ignored by the authorities for many years:tiphat:
It's a weird old world that's for sure! We'll have to wait and see what the "astonishing" news is.
If they have quashed the fines I would hope at the very least there is some sort of suspended sentence to prevent the same thing happening again.
It's a weird old world that's for sure! We'll have to wait and see what the "astonishing" news is.
If they have quashed the fines I would hope at the very least there is some sort of suspended sentence to prevent the same thing happening again.
What, you wanna hang 'em?..:laugh:
Angusjim
15-09-2013, 08:49
It's a weird old world that's for sure! We'll have to wait and see what the "astonishing" news is.
If they have quashed the fines I would hope at the very least there is some sort of suspended sentence to prevent the same thing happening again.
Maybe good news for Marbro & Ecky's cousins:goodluck::whistle:
Altamira
15-09-2013, 09:36
It's a weird old world that's for sure! We'll have to wait and see what the "astonishing" news is.
If they have quashed the fines I would hope at the very least there is some sort of suspended sentence to prevent the same thing happening again.
Astonishing News Hello Loaded, I assume the "astonishing news" is perhaps a bit complicated, otherwise a simple statement/explanation would have already been made. Some are suggesting that it may be a drastic reduction in the fine down to the minimum of 1500 euros, however this would be a embarrassing climb down for the Canary Government, so they would probably include some other greater threat upon those who are guilty, should they ever be caught again.
It's not fines have been reduced to a minimum of €1500
Peterrayner
15-09-2013, 09:52
Astonishing News Hello Loaded, I assume the "astonishing news" is perhaps a bit complicated, otherwise a simple statement/explanation would have already been made. Some are suggesting that it may be a drastic reduction in the fine down to the minimum of 1500 euros, however this would be a embarrassing climb down for the Canary Government, so they would probably include some other greater threat upon those who are guilty, should they ever be caught again.
Pssst the judicary aren't part of the "government" :spin:
Fivepence
15-09-2013, 09:53
What, you wanna hang 'em?..:laugh:
I think Loaded would prefer the current situation to continue.
The eradication of private letting is a dream come true for him and the rest of the sole agents.
Tesco would love to be the only supermarket in town. :laugh:
:goodluck: nelson they keep kicking but still you get up.
Angusjim
15-09-2013, 09:58
:crazy:
I think Loaded would prefer the current situation to continue.
The eradication of private letting is a dream come true for him and the rest of the sole agents.
Tesco would love to be the only supermarket in town. :laugh:
:goodluck:@Nelson they keep kicking but still you get up.
Hold on not all sole agents are bad for tourist industry in Tenerife only most:eek: but from what I have encountered to date Loaded is defo one of the best:c2::c2:, now Loaded don't let me down after this big build up:lol:
Peterrayner
15-09-2013, 10:03
It's not fines have been reduced to a minimum of €1500
even more astonishing than that then ????
Angusjim
15-09-2013, 10:05
even more astonishing than that then ????
Maybe there has been a bit of corruption going on:eek::eek:
Altamira
15-09-2013, 10:07
Pssst the judicary aren't part of the "government" :spin:Canary Government I believe you are technically correct, however it appears that the government are responsible for the laws and the recent enforcement of the 1995 illegal rentals.
Fivepence
15-09-2013, 10:18
Big Brown Envelope..Small Brown Envelope!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I think you have to allow for the fact that this law has been largely ignored by the authorities for many years right up until the recent clampdown. If someone has been letting for the last ten years quite freely, it would feel like the norm don't you think?it is possible that the authorities collected all the evidence well in advance,and when they instigated the clampdown they already new that they where going to make a lot of money out of it with excessive fines, so it wouldn't have mattered if you suddenly withdrew the advertising for your apartment, because they had proof of the years you had been letting it;), we all know of the debt the spanish government are in and they have seen these renters as an easy target, lets just hope they don't stoop to a new low like the greek government because you never know who the next victim will be;)
In the uk a first offence is your first conviction.the prosecutor
May describe an activity that you carried on illegally for some time, say running a waste sorting business without a licence. Lets say the court hears evidence this went on for 1 year and you did not stop the illegal activity even after the authorities called to tell you it was illegal. In the uk you would have aggravated the offence by continuing to operate after bring told to stop. Likewise if the illegal operator had stopped the activity when asked he could expect a lower penalty or even no actual prosecution at all.
Either way it would be the first offence and the court would be restricted to a lower penalty based on that absolute fact, clearly reasonable and proportionate , we can all see that a repeat offence is worse.
The example I am giving I think carries a maximum penalty of £50,000 in the uk. A first offender in the uk might get anything from a £500 fine to £5000 for this offence, it varies according to the circumstances that I outline.the final factor in a uk penalty is the offenders finances, a form has to completed outlining mortgages, expenses, dependant children etc. the court has to impose a penalty in regard to this and also will offer individuals and companies deferred monthly payments which they can afford to pay.
Magistrates and Judges in England and Wales have sentencing guidelines which are used to give consistency of sentencing for all offences including levels of fines. Every relevant offence has a fine level that indicates the maximum. Many factors can influence the final fine set, such as guilty plea, mitigating circumstances and relevant weekly earnings of the defendant.
Where a decision is reached that is outside the guidelines then reasons must be given in open court and it must be in the interests of justice to have done so.
Non payment of fines can result in the defendant being sent to prison and this does happen where there is wilful refusal to pay.
In the uk a first offence is your first conviction.the prosecutor
May describe an activity that you carried on illegally for some time, say running a waste sorting business without a licence. Lets say the court hears evidence this went on for 1 year and you did not stop the illegal activity even after the authorities called to tell you it was illegal. In the uk you would have aggravated the offence by continuing to operate after bring told to stop. Likewise if the illegal operator had stopped the activity when asked he could expect a lower penalty or even no actual prosecution at all.
Either way it would be the first offence and the court would be restricted to a lower penalty based on that absolute fact, clearly reasonable and proportionate , we can all see that a repeat offence is worse.
The example I am giving I think carries a maximum penalty of £50,000 in the uk. A first offender in the uk might get anything from a £500 fine to £5000 for this offence, it varies according to the circumstances that I outline.the final factor in a uk penalty is the offenders finances, a form has to completed outlining mortgages, expenses, dependant children etc. the court has to impose a penalty in regard to this and also will offer individuals and companies deferred monthly payments which they can afford to pay.
Peterrayner
15-09-2013, 12:10
Some UK fines can be issued direct ie parking and speeding offences etc. but these are usually of a limited amount.
I think what staggered the ex-pat owners was to receive a fine of 18,000E without recourse to some sort of hearing in front of a magistrate.
I should also add that as regards the illegal waste operator that I describe, if he was actually in a suitable location, eg an industrial area/zone, not a nuisance to residents or other business's , then the uk investigating authorities may allow him to apply for the proper licences and get legally compliant. They may in the circumstances not seek to prosecute the individual if he was willing to move forward legally .
I can confirm that this was my own start in the waste industry in 1992
Some UK fines can be issued direct ie parking and speeding offences etc. but these are usually of a limited amount.
I think what staggered the ex-pat owners was to receive a fine of 18,000E without recourse to some sort of hearing in front of a magistrate.
I agree totally Peter. In England and Wales even if your are issued with a fixed penalty notice for an offence you do have the right to appear at the Magistrates Court if you wish to do so. You are then able to either plead guilty and mitigate or plead not guilty and have a trial - clearly the costs of this increases dramatically.
The size of these initial fines is quite staggering and the worrying part is that the appeals process is so expensive and long winded, as to discourage people from actually appealing.
But, the one common factor in both Countries is that the Judiciary is independent (and so it should be) from Government. I know there are cynics who do not believe this but I can testify first hand that this is the case in England and Wales.
Angusjim
15-09-2013, 12:29
In the uk a first offence is your first conviction.the prosecutor
May describe an activity that you carried on illegally for some time, say running a waste sorting business without a licence. Lets say the court hears evidence this went on for 1 year and you did not stop the illegal activity even after the authorities called to tell you it was illegal. In the uk you would have aggravated the offence by continuing to operate after bring told to stop. Likewise if the illegal operator had stopped the activity when asked he could expect a lower penalty or even no actual prosecution at all.
Either way it would be the first offence and the court would be restricted to a lower penalty based on that absolute fact, clearly reasonable and proportionate , we can all see that a repeat offence is worse.
The example I am giving I think carries a maximum penalty of £50,000 in the uk. A first offender in the uk might get anything from a £500 fine to £5000 for this offence, it varies according to the circumstances that I outline.the final factor in a uk penalty is the offenders finances, a form has to completed outlining mortgages, expenses, dependant children etc. the court has to impose a penalty in regard to this and also will offer individuals and companies deferred monthly payments which they can afford to pay.
Magistrates and Judges in England and Wales have sentencing guidelines which are used to give consistency of sentencing for all offences including levels of fines. Every relevant offence has a fine level that indicates the maximum. Many factors can influence the final fine set, such as guilty plea, mitigating circumstances and relevant weekly earnings of the defendant.
Where a decision is reached that is outside the guidelines then reasons must be given in open court and it must be in the interests of justice to have done so.
Non payment of fines can result in the defendant being sent to prison and this does happen where there is wilful refusal to pay.
But its happening in Tenerife so what have UK laws got to do with anything in Tenerife??????
Peterrayner
15-09-2013, 12:30
I am waiting patiently for the news and if its NOt a reduction in the fines, but is still astonishing and positive, then lets hope we hear something tomorrow.
I do understand that the lawyers need to study any judgement carefully and apply the correct interpretation. :)
Jim...its effecting mostly UK owners who have limited experience or knowledge of the Spanish Civil Code.
Angusjim
15-09-2013, 12:33
I am waiting patiently for the news and if its NOt a reduction in the fines, but is still astonishing and positive, then lets hope we hear something tomorrow.
I do understand that the lawyers need to study any judgement carefully and apply the correct interpretation. :)
Stop it Peter I'll no be sleeping tonight wee a this excitement this is worse than who shot JR :lol::lol:
of course the systems of law in spain and uk are quite different. I suppose we were trying to argue as we have before, that the principle of first offence should have ensured a lower fine, we have all been saying that the 18.000 euro fine was absurd in the first instance, certainly all the lawyers involved said that in the first place and expected lower final penalties in the end.
Both uk and spanish law is subject to eu law, so what actually will matter in the end is what eu law thinks fair and proportionate in terms of first offence and the type of offender. Latest jolt for the uk is the eu ruling that all offenders must have some hope of parole, the uk can not have whole life sentances without hope of release.
spain or uk its eu law that has the final say
Altamira
15-09-2013, 16:21
Astonishing News JA now says it is "not bad news"
Fivepence
15-09-2013, 16:24
Astonishing News JF now says it is "not bad news"
Lots of speculation and 2nd guessing, better to wait until the details are revealed.
My thoughts are that Governments and law makers rarely admit when they have blundered.
canary boy
15-09-2013, 16:26
yes don't speculate but there has been no out of court meeting that we know of, so if that's the case then it can only be good news,
Peterrayner
15-09-2013, 16:55
Astonishing News JA now says it is "not bad news"
which to date in this context is truly astonishing :wink:
I think Loaded would prefer the current situation to continue.
The eradication of private letting is a dream come true for him and the rest of the sole agents.
Tesco would love to be the only supermarket in town. :laugh:
:goodluck: nelson they keep kicking but still you get up.
Not all we have plenty of competition already from rival complexes who all play by the same rules.
I'm not afraid of competition because I'm all for improving what we do constantly - competition breeds competitiveness .
Not all we have plenty of competition already from rival complexes who all play by the same rules.
I'm not afraid of competition because I'm all for improving what we do constantly - competition breeds competitiveness .
And protectionism distorts markets and forces extra costs onto the consumer. The system of monopoly sole agency collectively running holiday home rentals in the canaries like hotels completely removes lower cost individually rented self catering properties from the market place. This in turn harms tourist footfall in the canaries and removes free consumer choice, the consumer is told you stay in a nearly hotel for self catering or not at all.
The sole agents want competition with each other, their own cosy Alice in wonderland world, real competition terrifys them
The sole agents want competition with each other, their own cosy Alice in wonderland world, real competition terrifys them
Have you seen Paloma Beaches Apartments they'd wipe the floor with Sur y Sols 60's air raid shelter style.
Sole Agents are here to stay.
YOUNG GOLFER
15-09-2013, 23:09
Have you seen Paloma Beaches Apartments they'd wipe the floor with Sur y Sols 60's air raid shelter style.
Sole Agents are here to stay.
9plus are you on commission lol
Altamira
16-09-2013, 09:34
Astonishing News JA has said it is not bad news and has now also mentioned that it has nothing to do with the class action. The first part of the leak would suggest that it is good news for those involved in the illegal rental industry and the second leak may suggest that it is not good news for sole agents.
Well it's good news guys for anyone who has been fined........what a bloody mess this is!
Nice to see a little common sense for once.
nelson....I hope you get your money back soon.
I don't see it as a blow to agents though. It looks to me like it's still illegal so I guess a lot will heed the warning and count themselves lucky. I think people who wish to continue to let freely have some distance to go.
Altamira
16-09-2013, 09:50
The Astonishing News - Now Disclosed on the JA site So it appears that illegal rental convictions that were based on internet advertizing are not valid !!!!!!!
Percentage of data collected from the Internet resulting in fines compared to other forms ?
No Complaints books etc, we already knew this as the Government changed its approach in 2011 knowing Internet related data wouldn't fold up, so whats new ?
Percentage of data collected from the Internet resulting in fines compared to other forms ?
No Complaints books etc, we already knew this as the Government changed its approach in 2011 knowing Internet related data wouldn't fold up, so whats new ?
Sore Loser.........................sorry, forget the sore..:laugh:
So nothing has changed has it tonto
Altamira
16-09-2013, 10:54
Percentage of data collected from the Internet resulting in fines compared to other forms ?
No Complaints books etc, we already knew this as the Government changed its approach in 2011 knowing Internet related data wouldn't fold up, so whats new ?
Astonishing News Hello 9plus, you are correct, however the announcement simply confirms that the convictions base on internet advertizing are not valid, but this raises many other questions about if all other convictions such as complaints books were triggered by the internet are they then also invalid?
Angusjim
16-09-2013, 10:57
Well this should be good for another 1000 posts I await Nelson's views with baited breath:c2::c2:
Like it says it's only for those illegal lets that are justified solely by the Internet.
If they've inspected and caught this practice red handed, whether the info was taken prior from the Internet or not is irrelevant.
I would like to know the percentage of just Internet data resulting in fines.
canary boy
16-09-2013, 11:05
when the inspectors started coming around our complex our president asked would they like to look around and they said they are not permitted to do that or knock on doors, so internet is there only sound way of catching the illegal lettings and that has now gone, i would nt be surprised if the holiday sites have a rush tonight because you just cannot use internet as evidence
Altamira
16-09-2013, 11:10
Like it says it's only for those illegal lets that are justified solely by the Internet.
If they've inspected and caught this practice red handed, whether the info was taken prior from the Internet or not is irrelevant.
I would like to know the percentage of just Internet data resulting in fines.
Internet Advertizing be Careful I also note that JA is now making it clear that convictions solely based on the internet are invalid. But if you advertize on the internet, then that is highly likely to trigger an investigation by the inspectors to obtain non internet evidence. This is all about the quality of the evidence.
I am also interested in the ratio of the different types of evidence used in the accusations.
canary boy
16-09-2013, 11:44
altamira do really think the government after all this lost money and costs they will have to pay there really going to pursue this? would it be more productive to seek a resolution that brings the current letting laws in to line with the rest of the world
seanocelt
16-09-2013, 11:54
Nelson is down the pub!!
canary boy
16-09-2013, 11:55
Nelson is down the pub!!
can you imagine his smerk?
welshman
16-09-2013, 12:25
What about the people that have paid to fight this action are they going to take a counter claim to recoup their expenses they have uncured!!! This could run and run keep the solicitors in Paella and wine for years.
Good on you Nelson how much more is not legal with their action. May be a load of bolistein
Peterrayner
16-09-2013, 12:52
AFAIAA, and I have seen several examples of the fines notifications issued direct to several owners and seen many of those published on the BOC, and it seems clear to me that even the later fines imposed for not having the correct paperwork IE complaints books and notices were based soley on evidence obtained using internet advertisments.
So it would appear that these actions are now deemed to be illegal or at best based on evidence that would be not be accepted by the courts.
I know hindsight is always 20-20, but perhaps they should have issued a general warning to internet advertisers first, to cease illegal lettings, and then followed up with on site inspections, which they might well do now, or issue a general amnesity and perhaps look at the whole sorry mess again.
perhaps they might even think about issuing private annual licences :)
It's fair enough that this evidence alone is not good enough, I for one have adverts on certain websites that I never asked to have.
Some holiday rental sites find you on a site you have paid for, and then add you to theirs without asking "free off charge" for a year - to help their websites SEO.... And then try and sign you up the year after.
If you don't sign up the next year they don't delete "your ad" because that would affect their overall ranking and results in the SERPS.
What happens? You're advert with your details remains live indefinitely - even if you've sold up / no longer let.
If I had been fined for advertising online I'd claim I never placed the ad, rendering all evidence useless.
Peterrayner
16-09-2013, 12:59
If I had been fined for advertising online I'd claim I never placed the ad, rendering all evidence useless.
IIRC that is one of the defences made by Jose for his appellants. ie there was no evidence that the owners actually placed the ads.
Altamira
16-09-2013, 13:05
altamira do really think the government after all this lost money and costs they will have to pay there really going to pursue this? would it be more productive to seek a resolution that brings the current letting laws in to line with the rest of the world
Illegal Letting Evidence I think the Canary Government will ignore their own failings and simply focus on other quality evidence to obtain safe convictions. The Canary Government appears to be committed to increase its control on all aspects of the Canary tourist industry. It is for others to champion the case for free enterprise and oppose the monopoly sole agent system. I personally believe that a sole agent system can have many advantages, but it should permit some tourist licensed individual lettings to operate and offer specific individual apartments for rent.
Didn't we all agree that this was precisely why the government changed the reasons for the fines?
We said around a year or more ago that they'd changed to fining people for not having inspection books etc instead of basing the action in the Internet adverts.
Angusjim
16-09-2013, 13:14
Come on Nelson stop teasing we know you are lurking:laugh::hide:
canary boy
16-09-2013, 13:19
physical evidence? if they are not permitted to "knock on doors or inspect the complex how are they supposed to get physical evidence?
Altamira
16-09-2013, 13:26
physical evidence? if they are not permitted to "knock on doors or inspect the complex how are they supposed to get physical evidence?
Inspections - Evidence I note you had mentioned this before, however I believe they have visited various sites, knocked on doors and asked questions, perhaps others may wish to confirm?
Peterrayner
16-09-2013, 13:33
Didn't we all agree that this was precisely why the government changed the reasons for the fines?
We said around a year or more ago that they'd changed to fining people for not having inspection books etc instead of basing the action in the Internet adverts.
Yes they clearly changed the wording on the Fines Notifications some time ago but I believe that those "inspections" were stilll based on information gleaned from internet ads.
Surely if they were indeed visiting indivudual apartments on site last year and demanding to see Touristic Notices and Inspections Books this would have appeared as important news on the forums and internet.
canary boy
16-09-2013, 13:43
Inspections - Evidence I note you had mentioned this before, however I believe they have visited various sites, knocked on doors and asked questions, perhaps others may wish to confirm?
Like i said our president offered them free passage anywhere but they declined as they are not permitted to do that, well if that's the case how are they going to know for sure?
Altamira
16-09-2013, 13:45
Yes they clearly changed the wording on the Fines Notifications some time ago but I believe that these "inspections" were stilll based on information gleaned from internet ads.
Surely if they were indeed visiting indivudual apartments on site last year and demanding to see Touristic Notices and Inspections Books this would have appeared as important news on the forums and internet.
Inspections - Evidence I believe such inspection visits were reported on these forums. I also understand that around 90% of the charges were based on internet adverts only, if this is correct then it has truly been a Governmental Fiasco I would imagine there will be many requests for fine refunds and claims for legal costs.
Peterrayner
16-09-2013, 13:54
Inspections - Evidence I believe such inspection visits were reported on these forums. I also understand that around 90% of the charges were based on internet adverts only, if this is correct then it has truly been a Governmental Fiasco I would imagine there will be many requests for fine refunds and claims for legal costs.
I am aware that the inspectors visited several Touristic sites in our area Oasis del Sur in 2011, to check on site agents and advised owners to register within 28 days if they were or intended to rent out.
They also were reported to have visited several local Adminstrators offices and some off site letting agents to obtain contact details of owners they had identified has having internet ads.
However. despite several rumours of further visits to other lapsed touristic sites, I have not had any direct evidence of actual on site inspections of individual residential properties.
Janet has given me permission to copy this reply on the forum:
Thanks Peter. I think, though, that the law will remain as it is, with just the method of inspection changing. Indeed, Turismo had already changed its method … so I suspect, personally, that they suspected this was illegal even as they were continuing the internet inspections and issuing (and collecting) fines.
Having said that, we estimate that a large percentage, perhaps as much as 90%, of existing fines are based on this internet-only, and therefore illegal, inspection method.
Please be aware that what we have relates to “inspection by internet alone”. The internet can still be used to generate leads, but it cannot be used, at that stage, to impose a fine on the suspicion of an offence. Far more work, like physical visits and collection of further evidence, must take place before an offence can be deemed to have been commited. Only at that point may they issue a fine … but they can still use the internet in the early stages of this process.
Come on Nelson stop teasing we know you are lurking:laugh::hide:
He'll be along shortly.
He's just practicing the pointy hand movements that go with "You're not singin' any more"...:laugh:
Yes Peter when they came to our complex they were not given individual owners details they did require unregistered owners to do so and as far as i know did not visit apartments only the 2 onsite agents and reception but i think this is good news the fines were excessive.
for the information of nelson: going back to visitor figures via Low Cost
http://www.diariodeavisos.com/2013/09/canarias-registra-29-millones-entradas-por-via-low-cost-hasta-agosto/
... figures so far the same as last year for Low Cost airlines flying to the Canaries, so perhaps the authors of the press release from the Santa Cruz Chamber of Commerce were lazy and just took Ryanair's proposed cuts as being a true reflection of numbers ?
Lies, damn Lies and Statistics and all that :)
On nelson's silence, no doubt he is talking to his lawyer and one hopes, begging him to liaise with Jose Escobedo ... this resolution says nothing about the fines being excessive, only that the information on which they were based is considered "null & void"
Peterrayner
16-09-2013, 15:48
Yes Peter when they came to our complex they were not given individual owners details they did require unregistered owners to do so and as far as i know did not visit apartments only the 2 onsite agents and reception but i think this is good news the fines were excessive.
Hi David yes it was your complex I was referencing.
I never ever felt that these fines were proportionate or reasonable and I think ALOTCA have made exactly the right legal arguments in their appeals to show imposing them based soley on an internet ad wouldnt be sufficient evidence in court.
Lets hope the judge agrees and the cases based on this evidence alone are dismissed outright on the 26th September.
The Tourismo have wasted a huge amount of money with 17 inspectors wages and costs for the past 2 -3 years and no doubt the reimbursment of fines already paid and the appellants legal costs.
Hi David yes it was your complex I was referencing.
I never ever felt that these fines were proportionate or reasonable and I think ALOTCA have made exactly the right legal arguments in their appeals to show imposing them based soley on an internet ad wouldnt be sufficient evidence in court.
Lets hope the judge agrees and the cases based on this evidence alone are dismissed outright on the 26th September.
The Tourismo have wasted a huge amount of money with 17 inspectors wages and costs for the past 2 -3 years and no doubt the reimbursment of fines already paid and the appellants legal costs.
If you take the case of people like Nelson (and he's not alone in this scenario) -
He has 2 properties which he has been letting out illegally, knowing that it was illegal.
If you assume 40 weeks per year occupancy at £400 per week, he's making £16000 on each property per year by breaking the law and he's been doing it for years now; over 10 years with 2 properties he's raked in £320,000.
The reason he's so p i s s e d off about being caught is they've screwed his income stream.
I don't think a fine equivalent to a years rent is out of proportion in cases like that.
If you take the case of people like Nelson (and he's not alone in this scenario) -
He has 2 properties which he has been letting out illegally
If you assume 40 weeks per year occupancy at £400 per week, he's making £16000 on each property per year by breaking the law and he's been doing it for years now; over 10 years with 2 properties he's raked in £320,000.
The reason he's so p i s s e d off about being caught is they've screwed his income stream.
I don't think a fine equivalent to a years rent is out of proportion in cases like that.
£400 per week if only!
£400 per week if only!
Even at £300 per week, they've made £240,000.
If you take the case of people like Nelson (and he's not alone in this scenario) -
He has 2 properties which he has been letting out illegally
If you assume 40 weeks per year occupancy at £400 per week, he's making £16000 on each property per year by breaking the law and he's been doing it for years now; over 10 years with 2 properties he's raked in £320,000.
The reason he's so p i s s e d off about being caught is they've screwed his income stream.
I don't think a fine equivalent to a years rent is out of proportion in cases like that.
bobMac,if you are paying £400 p.w. for a ''bed in a box'' it time to look at a private villa!!
Angusjim
16-09-2013, 16:13
Even at £300 per week, they've made £240,000.
That would be gross ?
junglejim
16-09-2013, 16:14
If you take the case of people like Nelson (and he's not alone in this scenario) -
He has 2 properties which he has been letting out illegally
If you assume 40 weeks per year occupancy at £400 per week, he's making £16000 on each property per year by breaking the law and he's been doing it for years now; over 10 years with 2 properties he's raked in £320,000.
The reason he's so p i s s e d off about being caught is they've screwed his income stream.
I don't think a fine equivalent to a years rent is out of proportion in cases like that.
You seem to be erring on the high side for rentals ( Loaded would be pleased to get that!) -I would suggest nearer €275 pw-maintenace fees ,cleaning costs , original capital outlay ,cost of furnishings, replacements would eat into rental income - yes he´s making money out of his property, same as agents do out of others whether it´s sole agents or long term rentals or about 100 people on my complex !
I know people who rent out their apartment , well decorated for €180 pw
But probably not as much as some corrupt officials here in Tenerife who are up in court shortly !
bobMac,if you are paying £400 p.w. for a ''bed in a box'' it time to look at a private villa!!
I've stayed in apartments and villas, both legal & illegal, and we normally pay between £300 & £400 for a 2 bed, 2 bath.
junglejim
16-09-2013, 16:41
I've stayed in apartments and villas, both legal & illegal, and we normally pay between £300 & £400 for a 2 bed, 2 bath.
check back on Loaded´s extensive breakdown on charges and costs for a decent sole agent ,you´re way off target .
If you can get me €400per week for my apartment , I´ll move out to rented accommodation and you can be my sole agent or even "Friend"!
check back on Loaded´s extensive breakdown on charges and costs for a decent sole agent ,you´re way off target .
If you can get me €400per week for my apartment , I´ll move out to rented accommodation and you can be my sole agent or even "Friend"!
We usually stay in the Golf Del Sur area and the going rate for a 2 bed property there is in the bracket I quoted.
Friends of ours stayed in a propert in San Miguel in August and the 2 bed they had was over 600 per week.
I am not talking about Sole Agents, I'm talking about the people who rent through OnLine sites privately.
canary boy
16-09-2013, 17:16
so what's the interest for one year on 2.5 million? and an average solicitor costs of €1.500 per case,phew that's alot of dosh they have to dish out not to mention the law suits for compensation, just what the economy wanted
If you take the case of people like Nelson (and he's not alone in this scenario) -
He has 2 properties which he has been letting out illegally, knowing that it was illegal.
If you assume 40 weeks per year occupancy at £400 per week, he's making £16000 on each property per year by breaking the law and he's been doing it for years now; over 10 years with 2 properties he's raked in £320,000.
The reason he's so p i s s e d off about being caught is they've screwed his income stream.
I don't think a fine equivalent to a years rent is out of proportion in cases like that.
A Repayment Mortgage of £250,000 at 3.99% over 25 Years will be £15,816 per year plus Community fees, plus utility bills, plus taxes,plus maintenance etc etc.
So £16,000 per year would not cover the costs of the Mortgage etc....
A Repayment Mortgage of £250,000 at 3.99% over 25 Years will be £15,816 per year plus Community fees, plus utility bills, plus taxes,plus maintenance etc etc.
So £16,000 per year would not cover the costs of the Mortgage etc....
doesn't matter if it paid the mortgage or not, after the mortgage is finally paid the (ill gotten?) income from letting will have paid his mortgage and he could sell both properties for 100,000-125,000 meaning at the end of the day he's illegally paid for property worth around 1/4 of a million and can cash in when its paid off.
Peterrayner
16-09-2013, 18:56
Its not has simple as that though is it.
and that's the fault (in the vast majority of cases) of the agents who sold the apartments, largely on the basis that short term rental incomes would pay most of the costs.
and without that inducement many of these sites would be mostly still empty apart from the odd full time residents.
Its not has simple as that though is it.
and that's the fault (in the vast majority of cases) of the agents who sold the apartments, largely on the basis that short term rental incomes would pay most of the costs.
and without that inducement many of these sites would be mostly still empty apart from the odd full time residents.
But not in nelsons case, he knew the law and wasn't misguided by anyone so...
Well that certainly was astonishing news, wonderful news, well deserved by all the unfortunate people so badly treated by the absurd massive fines and crazy crackdown on holiday home letting.
I apologise for not posting sooner, I have to work for a living , I leave home at 5.30 am and got back tonight at 6.00pm, I have only just got up to speed on the news.
Wonderful news for a great many people
Well that certainly was astonishing news, wonderful news, well deserved by all the unfortunate people so badly treated by the absurd massive fines and crazy crackdown on holiday home letting.
I apologise for not posting sooner, I have to work for a living , I leave home at 5.30 am and got back tonight at 6.00pm, I have only just got up to speed on the news.
Wonderful news for a great many people
Los hechos reseñados se desprenden de la publicidad e información contenida en la correspondiente página web y del informe emitido por el Servicio de Inspección de Turismo de fecha 20 de octubre de 2010
... and I guess it is good news for you too, nelson, unless they actually physically inspected your two apartments (for their informe). I do think you need to get your lawyer to liaise with Jose Escobedo at this point to ensure your case is included.
However, as 9PLUS would say ... the clampdown continues ... no letting laws were overturned by this resolution.
Los hechos reseñados se desprenden de la publicidad e información contenida en la correspondiente página web y del informe emitido por el Servicio de Inspección de Turismo de fecha 20 de octubre de 2010
... and I guess it is good news for you too, nelson, unless they actually physically inspected your two apartments (for their informe). I do think you need to get your lawyer to liaise with Jose Escobedo at this point to ensure your case is included.
However, as 9PLUS would say ... the clampdown continues ... no letting laws were overturned by this resolution.
Yes Doreen I am an Internet inspected prosecution. Agreed the daft laws remain unchanged or indeed unchallenged , the issue of an eu challenge will be now a little further down the road.
delderek
16-09-2013, 20:03
I am unsure of how much we are allowed to put on here about J A and although I am not involved I'm sure hundreds of people owe that lady a debt of gratitude. To liase between Canarian Lawyers and the English ex Pats and put it into as simple understandable facts that can be understood is no mean achievement. And all for no reward.:tiphat:
Peterrayner
16-09-2013, 20:06
However, as 9PLUS would say ... the clampdown continues ... no letting laws were overturned by this resolution.
Not overturned but maybe emasculated.
On what legal basis are they going to get admissible evidence sufficient to warrant what in effect will be a search of private property.
Given their performance to date they will now need to be absolutely certain they are acting on on a totally solid legal basis
There's so much wrong with this thread it's not true.
You're still referring to Nelson as if he's something that crawled out from under a stone. Please stop that.
He didn't win anything. He just didn't lose as much as you would have liked. Are you all perfect? Did you all play the game honestly with the taxman over the years?
I'm horrified that now as the ruling is out you can't just let it lie. There are thousands of "illegal" letters but your venom is pointed only at one as if he alone caused you great harm. It's a disgrace that professional people choose to treat this guy like a serial killer. You've let yourselves down.
Just my opinion of course, feel free to carry on this nonsence.
Not overturned but maybe emasculated.
On what legal basis are they going to get admissible evidence sufficient to warrant what in effect will be a search of private property.
Where would they stand legally if they did what Trading Standards in the UK do and they actually made a test purchase and confirmed a booking through the Internet. They would then have copies of all the paperwork relating to the booking which they could submit as evidence.
If Nelsons initials are A.L.G. it's not such good news;
Primero: explotar turísticamente los apartamentos 29 y 41 del complejo denominado "Sur y Sol" sin disponer del Libro de Inspección de Turismo.
Segundo: explotar turísticamente los apartamentos 29 y 41 del complejo denominado "Sur y Sol" careciendo de las hojas de reclamaciones.
Peterrayner
16-09-2013, 20:15
But not in nelsons case, he knew the law and wasn't misguided by anyone so...
you missed out "allegedly"
but you I don't think you can now legally convict anyone based on a statement made on an "internet" based forum :)
Like I said elsewhere, this development is great news for the ones who were fined early on, not so good if you were one of the later inspections where the inspectors changed their strategy....
Peterrayner
16-09-2013, 20:20
Where would they stand legally if they did what Trading Standards in the UK do and they actually made a test purchase and confirmed a booking through the Internet. They would then have copies of all the paperwork relating to the booking which they could submit as evidence.
I am not sure isn't that what lawyers call "entrapment" ????
Altamira
16-09-2013, 20:20
However, as 9PLUS would say ... the clampdown continues ... no letting laws were overturned by this resolution.
Persecution Hopefully those who have now avoided the fines due to the legal farce/loop hole, will take note. I believe the Tenerife Government will now be more robust in their investigations. They may wish to make up for lost ground & income, therefore they are likely to look at those who have escaped via the loop hole and seek positive evidence for a safe prosecution, I think some of those future accused could then face a 30,000 euro fine.
Peterrayner
16-09-2013, 20:23
Like I said elsewhere, this development is great news for the ones who were fined early on, not so good if you were one of the later inspections where the inspectors changed their strategy....
Janet is saying 90% of all cases to date are based on internet inspections. So the expectation is these are likely to be dismissed in court.
Those who carried on with internet ads after the announcement of their intention to enforce the 1995 Letting Laws in December 2010 cant really complain.
So long as those 90% learned their lesson it's all good news - a chance for them after they were misguided or misinformed .....
canary boy
16-09-2013, 20:44
yes but we cant get out now because prices are too low
Peterrayner
16-09-2013, 20:50
So long as those 90% learned their lesson it's all good news - a chance for them after they were misguided or misinformed .....
Agreed totally.:) and if the owners now act accordingly perhaps the actions of the Tourismo will have after all achieved what they intended...but at what cost ???
There's so much wrong with this thread it's not true.
You're still referring to Nelson as if he's something that crawled out from under a stone. Please stop that.
He didn't win anything. He just didn't lose as much as you would have liked. Are you all perfect? Did you all play the game honestly with the taxman over the years?
I'm horrified that now as the ruling is out you can't just let it lie. There are thousands of "illegal" letters but your venom is pointed only at one as if he alone caused you great harm. It's a disgrace that professional people choose to treat this guy like a serial killer. You've let yourselves down.
Just my opinion of course, feel free to carry on this nonsence.
have you considered Hollywood.......................dear
x
- - - - - - - - - - merged double post - - - - - - - - - -
If Nelsons initials are A.L.G. it's not such good news;
Primero: explotar turísticamente los apartamentos 29 y 41 del complejo denominado "Sur y Sol" sin disponer del Libro de Inspección de Turismo.
Segundo: explotar turísticamente los apartamentos 29 y 41 del complejo denominado "Sur y Sol" careciendo de las hojas de reclamaciones.
yeh thats her
Los hechos reseñados se desprenden de la publicidad e información contenida en la correspondiente página web y del informe emitido por el Servicio de Inspección de Turismo de fecha 20 de octubre de 2010
... and I guess it is good news for you too, nelson, unless they actually physically inspected your two apartments (for their informe). I do think you need to get your lawyer to liaise with Jose Escobedo at this point to ensure your case is included.
Yes Doreen I am an Internet inspected prosecution. Agreed the daft laws remain unchanged or indeed unchallenged , the issue of an eu challenge will be now a little further down the road.
If Nelsons initials are ...... it's not such good news;
Primero: explotar turísticamente los apartamentos ..... del complejo denominado "Sur y Sol" sin disponer del Libro de Inspección de Turismo.
Segundo: explotar turísticamente los apartamentos ..... del complejo denominado "Sur y Sol" careciendo de las hojas de reclamaciones.
Loaded, you need to read down a little further in the BOC report to see what the fine was based upon ... quoted by me in the post above and confirmed by nelson that there was no actual physical inspection .... so let's ease up a little on nelson ... and hope he realises he picked the wrong side when discussing the merits of various lawyers :)
candy2411
16-09-2013, 23:00
There's so much wrong with this thread it's not true.
You're still referring to Nelson as if he's something that crawled out from under a stone. Please stop that.
He didn't win anything. He just didn't lose as much as you would have liked. Are you all perfect? Did you all play the game honestly with the taxman over the years?
I'm horrified that now as the ruling is out you can't just let it lie. There are thousands of "illegal" letters but your venom is pointed only at one as if he alone caused you great harm. It's a disgrace that professional people choose to treat this guy like a serial killer. You've let yourselves down.
Just my opinion of course, feel free to carry on this nonsence.
Well said Toto, my thoughts exactly. Don't however expect any sensible response from the person(s) to whom this is directed as they're obviously too peeved at the outcome .
Sad, but true.
Loaded, you need to read down a little further in the BOC report to see what the fine was based upon ... quoted by me in the post above and confirmed by nelson that there was no actual physical inspection .... so let's ease up a little on nelson ... and hope he realises he picked the wrong side when discussing the merits of various lawyers :)
Depends on what they mean by "y del informe ...."
You're probably right but...
If it makes certain people feel a bit better I have known a few knocks in my life. My mum died of bowel cancer and my poor dad died at 57 of a sudden heart attack. He was a simple family man he never traveled abroad. He passed away just 4 years before the birth of his first grandchild, I can honestly say that the canary govt could fine me 10 times what they did if my dad could hold his grand kids for one day.
There are much more important things in life
If it makes certain people feel a bit better I have known a few knocks in my life. My mum died of bowel cancer and my poor dad died at 57 of a sudden heart attack. He was a simple family man he never traveled abroad. He passed away just 4 years before the birth of his first grandchild, I can honestly say that the canary govt could fine me 10 times what they did if my dad could hold his grand kids for one day.
There are much more important things in life
Agree 100%!!!!!
There are much more important things in life! I'm sure if any of this threads participants met in person there'd be some wry smiles on a lot of faces.
It doesn't make anyone feel any better Nelson, your losses are your life's tragedy's and unfortunately we all have our fill of them. I am 33 and have lost 2 brothers - one as recently as last month - no one welcomes personal tragedy, and I'm certain no one here will he celebrating other your losses or mine.
Altamira
17-09-2013, 09:09
Humorous Banter or Victimization It has been clear for some time that there is some good banter, but on some occasions there appears to be a bit of victimization by a group of individuals against someone who champions the cause for free enterprise as opposed to the sole agent monopoly. We should all collectively try and improve the image of this forum thread, otherwise some may decide that this site is beneath them and pull out.
I don't believe personal tragedy should be included in this thread at any level.
I don't believe personal tragedy should be included in this thread at any level.
Agreed, we can't debate an issue then pull a violin out - either we debate it or we don't - that's it.
Agreed, we can't debate an issue then pull a violin out - either we debate it or we don't - that's it.
Exactly...........
Peterrayner
17-09-2013, 09:37
Lo que no te mata, te hace mas fuerte.
Angusjim
17-09-2013, 09:40
So to recap its now OK to do holiday lets on El Mirador???:tongue::laugh:
canary boy
17-09-2013, 09:42
what is there to debate we broke the rules and got caught, we got off through a loop hole(Happy days)and you know not to do it again ,done,just listen to your solicitor to get back your money and how to move forward , do not listen to anyone on here just your solicitor
Peterrayner
17-09-2013, 09:58
and I suspect the solicitors will advise you to wait and see what the court judges ruling is on 26th September.
Laws such as 1995 Letting Laws are statues only and it requires legal case precedents to establish interpretations and rulings.
This ruling from the Presidencia should have been made 15 years ago IMHO.
So to recap its now OK to do holiday lets on El Mirador???:tongue::laugh:
Absolutely, as long as you book through their well known agent Eric Thump...:laugh:
Peterrayner
17-09-2013, 10:04
So to recap its now OK to do holiday lets on El Mirador???:tongue::laugh:
why ?? are you cancelling your Xmas booking ???? :laugh:
Angusjim
17-09-2013, 10:44
why ?? are you cancelling your Xmas booking ???? :laugh:
Why have you got an alternative " cousin Peter ":lol::hello:
So to recap its now OK to do holiday lets on El Mirador???:tongue::laugh:
Law wise "Nothing" has changed, only that as previously mentioned around 90% of fines could be squashed, but if the physical inspections of not having the required complaint book etc is in fact justifiable in Law as illegal renting, the number could well be a lot higher than 10%
Angusjim
17-09-2013, 10:52
Law wise "Nothing" has changed, only that as previously mentioned around 90% of fines could be squashed, but if the physical inspections of not having the required complaint book etc is in fact justifiable in Law as illegal renting, the number could well be a lot higher than 10%
Mark as a matter of interest as a tax payer over there how do feel about the amount of money that has been wasted due to the incompetence of the Touristic Police in this matter its a bit of a farce is it not ?
Fivepence
17-09-2013, 11:17
I should like to say that I feel happy for Nelson.
Having followed this from the begining, my opinion has always been that it was/is a bad, ill thought out law.
I still can not see why owners cannot be registered for letting, inspected and safety certs for gas and electricity issued, all at a cost to the owner.
I do not see why a 3rd party (sole agent) is needed.
They just take a cut of the owners investment, for a small, unnecessary input.
They are the cuckoo in the nest.
Get you're guns out now, I'll stand still next to nelson to make it easier to shoot me. :spin:
Mark as a matter of interest as a tax payer over there how do feel about the amount of money that has been wasted due to the incompetence of the Touristic Police in this matter its a bit of a farce is it not ?
I'm not into wasting money and if this comes down to it's impossible to prove illegal lets and it's all a tax payers waste due to the incompetence of tourism, I'm totally against that part of it.
I'll answer as soon as the official figures on the percentage are released.
Internet fines could be yet only a small percentage and lower than the +or- 90% forecast.
- - - - - - - - - - merged double post - - - - - - - - - -
I should like to say that I feel happy for Nelson.
Having followed this from the begining, my opinion has always been that it was/is a bad, ill thought out law.
I still can not see why owners cannot be registered for letting, inspected and safety certs for gas and electricity issued, all at a cost to the owner.
I do not see why a 3rd party (sole agent) is needed.
They just take a cut of the owners investment, for a small, unnecessary input.
They are the cuckoo in the nest.
Get you're guns out now, I'll stand still next to nelson to make it easier to shoot me. :spin:
Are you reading something I'm not as i see no victory for people illegal letting or unregistered letting as your post portrays other than fines generated from the Internet will more than likely be squashed.
Albatros
17-09-2013, 12:04
It seems to me that there are 3 issues here
1) The illegal aspect of renting on a residential complex.
2) Renting on a touristic complex without going through a 'sole agent'.
3) Evading tax on earnings by doing either or both of the above.
1) Personally, I would not want to own on a residential complex where renting occurred. It seems to be a fair law IMO.
2) This seems to me to be rather heavy handed. I can see the advantages of having an agent to manage the apartment rentals etc but feel that should be an option. I am assuming that one cannot register without a sole agent. Surely minimum standards for an apartment can be legislated in the terms of mandatory registration. I can understand the controversy surrounding this aspect of apartment rentals on Tenerife.
3) No sympathy for anyone caught evading paying the relevant local taxes. I do understand that registering/payment go hand in hand.
Given that the law is the law until it is changed, surely an appropriate fine would have been the taxes due for a full 52 weeks assumed occupancy plus something on top as a 'punishment'.
Much is made of comparable processes in Portugal etc. I have used s/c apartments on several countries with no complaints. I have used online travel agent services and direct booking. However, I have yet to rent one on Tenerife with fire evacuation procedures or fire extinguisher. This would appear to be a lack of defined minimum requirements in registration or just plain lack of adherence and policing.
Finally, it seems that policing the processes is incompetent. Irrespective of the final solution to the process to be used on residential complexes, clear laws and procedures for policing need to be implemented for the sake of the local economy.
tenerifelegal
17-09-2013, 12:21
Point No 3
Why would registering and tax payment go hand in hand?
I know legal owners who do not pay tax and illegal ones that do.
Just being registered unless the agent deducts the tax, (some do, )does not mean the tax is paid
Albatros
17-09-2013, 12:27
Point No 3
Why would registering and tax payment go hand in hand?
I know legal owners who do not pay tax and illegal ones that do.
Just being registered unless the agent deducts the tax, (some do, )does not mean the tax is paid
I should have said not registering and and not paying go hand in hand ... or so I would have thought. However, agents not deducting and paying the required tax is probably a 4th point.
How do illegal ones pay tax on their rental earnings?
tenerifelegal
17-09-2013, 12:36
Well for the past 20 years I have paid the tax on my apartments as have many others"illegal" owners. I was registered with the tourist board before the law and then the sole agent took over the complex, but I have carried on with my own bookings.
Peterrayner
17-09-2013, 12:37
How do illegal ones pay tax on their rental earnings?
Because tax payments are required for any and all rental income.
The Hacienda doesnt ask or differentiate between income earned from either short term or long term rentals. HTH.
tenerifelegal
17-09-2013, 12:37
I have paid the tax in Tenerife, it's never been refused!
Fivepence
17-09-2013, 12:38
I'm not into wasting money and if this comes down to it's impossible to prove illegal lets and it's all a tax payers waste due to the incompetence of tourism, I'm totally against that part of it.
I'll answer as soon as the official figures on the percentage are released.
Internet fines could be yet only a small percentage and lower than the +or- 90% forecast.
- - - - - - - - - - merged double post - - - - - - - - - -
Are you reading something I'm not as i see no victory for people illegal letting or unregistered letting as your post portrays other than fines generated from the Internet will more than likely be squashed.
Not at all Mark, I never mentioned the word 'Victory', I am just pleased that Nelson may have his fine squashed.
However, I have always held the opinion that it is a bad law and I am entitled to that.
Thanks. :tiphat:
Albatros
17-09-2013, 12:40
Because tax payments are required for any and all rental income.
The Hacienda doesnt ask or differentiate between income earned from either short term or long term rentals. HTH.
Thanks Peter.
Is tax payment in these circumstances voluntary? By that I mean, not attached to any form of registered letting business with the taxman.
It seems to me that there are 3 issues here
1) The illegal aspect of renting on a residential complex.
2) Renting on a touristic complex without going through a 'sole agent'.
3) Evading tax on earnings by doing either or both of the above.
1) Personally, I would not want to own on a residential complex where renting occurred. It seems to be a fair law IMO.
2) This seems to me to be rather heavy handed. I can see the advantages of having an agent to manage the apartment rentals etc but feel that should be an option. I am assuming that one cannot register without a sole agent. Surely minimum standards for an apartment can be legislated in the terms of mandatory registration. I can understand the controversy surrounding this aspect of apartment rentals on Tenerife.
3) No sympathy for anyone caught evading paying the relevant local taxes. I do understand that registering/payment go hand in hand.
Given that the law is the law until it is changed, surely an appropriate fine would have been the taxes due for a full 52 weeks assumed occupancy plus something on top as a 'punishment'.
Much is made of comparable processes in Portugal etc. I have used s/c apartments on several countries with no complaints. I have used online travel agent services and direct booking. However, I have yet to rent one on Tenerife with fire evacuation procedures or fire extinguisher. This would appear to be a lack of defined minimum requirements in registration or just plain lack of adherence and policing.
Finally, it seems that policing the processes is incompetent. Irrespective of the final solution to the process to be used on residential complexes, clear laws and procedures for policing need to be implemented for the sake of the local economy.
I concur almost entirely with what you say, except the bit about Fire procedures etc., as I know on our complex there is a set procedure for dealing with fires, and a number of owners (myself included) have been deignated Fire Wardens and been given training including in the use of the many fire extingishers and hoses on site.
I have no sympathy for those who don't declare their Income (here) in attempting to avoid paying Tax on Lettings etc.
If everyone paid their local taxes the Economy wouldn't be in as bad a state as it currently is.
Albatros
17-09-2013, 12:45
I concur almost entirely with what you say, except the bit about Fire procedures etc., as I know on our complex there is a set procedure for dealing with fires, and a number of owners (myself included) have been deignated Fire Wardens and been given training including in the use of the many fire extingishers and hoses on site.
I have no sympathy for those who don't declare their Income (here) in attempting to avoid paying Tax on Lettings etc.
If everyone paid their local taxes the Economy wouldn't be in as bad a state as it currently is.
Do the apartments have fire extinguishers/blankets and evacuation procedure attached to the rear of the apartment door?
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.4 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.