View Full Version : The Tenerife illegal lettings thread
Do the apartments have fire extinguishers/blankets and evacuation procedure attached to the rear of the apartment door?
Their is a building plan and apartment location and where the nearest stairs are by the the entrance door of each apartment, and I think also instructions on fire evacuation. Each corridor has at least one extinguisher and pull out fire hose (checked regularly), but don't know about blankets - think that is up to individual owners.
Peterrayner
17-09-2013, 13:46
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.
Not sure ???
What I do know is that in 2003 my (well known) local accountant/gestor said we now needed to register the apartment with the hacienda, which we had purchased outright in February 2003, has either letting or non letting.
If letting he would need to do a quarterly tax return, which he said he would do and that we could rent out.
The apartment complex was ex timeshare and the developer/agent selling them had appointed a single letting agent for the complex but he folded after about 6 months, during which time we were decorating and refitting so hadnt rented out.
We started renting out, has did most other owners, but again 6 months on the community administrator said the complex licence had lapsed, but we could still rent to family and friends. We did so for about a year and declared all income and paid 24% gross tax.
In 2005 we bought another apartment on a nearby complex off-plan and decided to put the first apartment on 6 months long lets which we have done ever since and paid all dues and taxes on this income.
We then let the new apartment to family and friends, which again the gestor said was OK providing it was a limited amount, he suggested less than 12 weeks a year, to avoid being considered a commercial activity which was OK with us has we had also increased our own useage to 5 or 6 times a year.
I did ask at our first community AGM if this was legal and the administrator said it was and we had this reply recorded in the minutes of the AGM.
The gestor, later in 2006, advised us in writing that commercial short term lettings were illegal on a residential complex.
I ask how did he define "commercial" ?? He said if we advertised for open rentals to the general public this would be deemed commercial, but that we could, under our legal constitutional rights in Spain, use our property for "personal and private use" and so we continued to invite family and friends to stay, either with us in attendance or not.
This was confirmed to be fully legal by a well known lawyer, who is now acting for many of those caught up with the fines.
We did have a general website, but didnt publish any rental amounts or offer any touristic services. However we decided it would be prudent to close these down which we did at the end of that year and for the following year we only let immediate family stay and a couple of very close long term family friends.
Since early 2009 we have only let on a 3 month or 6 month contract under the Civil Code.
Did you finally decide to use the apartment and rent out legally because you'd paid your mortgage quicker than previously imagined ?
Only joking
x
Peterrayner
17-09-2013, 14:00
Did you finally decide to use the apartment and rent out legally because you'd paid your mortgage quicker than previously imagined ?
Only joking
x
Besos :) x x x
Initially we had no mortgage on the first apartment purchased in 2003 - until November 2005 and then only a small one, about 30%, on the second off plan apartment.
The decision to rent "legally" long term was mostly due to it being simpler but also based on several other factors which I will not go into here.
I did argue fiercely with Loaded during the early years of our ownership regarding the legal use of apartments, based on the information and facts I have outlined in my previous post, but I have learnt since I was a being a bit stupid at that time and have have also learnt that he was mostly right and I had better reconsider my position.
boredinscotland
17-09-2013, 14:11
Will owners now put back on Hollidaylettings and other sites now that 'internet renting' is not legal to prosecute? I may be looking for long let El Mirador or maybe El Rincon form January and thinking maybe owners will gamble again internet although it still being against the law
Peterrayner
17-09-2013, 14:13
Will owners now put back on Hollidaylettings and other sites now that 'internet renting' is not legal to prosecute? I may be looking for long let El Mirador or maybe El Rincon form January and thinking maybe owners will gamble again internet although it still being against the law
Internet advertising for long lets is, and has always been, fully legal. :)
Will owners now put back on Hollidaylettings and other sites now that 'internet renting' is not legal to prosecute? I may be looking for long let El Mirador or maybe El Rincon form January and thinking maybe owners will gamble again internet although it still being against the law
This is where the latest news has to be worded carefully.......
The METHOD used to prosecute the illegal renters was not going to stand up in court and becuase of this; those cases are going to get thrown out.
It still remains illegal to actually rent your apartment out without being tourist board registered etc - so if the inspectors had followed up their investigation and VISITED the apartments advertised online, then those fines would have been upheld.
I did argue fiercely with Loaded during the early years of our ownership regarding the legal use of apartments, based on the information and facts I have outlined in my previous post, but I have learnt since I was a being a bit stupid at that time and have have also learnt that he was mostly right and I had better reconsider my position.
Thanks Peter.
- - - - - - - - - - merged double post - - - - - - - - - -
Will owners now put back on Hollidaylettings and other sites now that 'internet renting' is not legal to prosecute? I may be looking for long let El Mirador or maybe El Rincon form January and thinking maybe owners will gamble again internet although it still being against the law
This is where the latest news has to be worded carefully.......
The METHOD used to prosecute the illegal renters was not going to stand up in court and becuase of this; those cases are going to get thrown out.
It still remains illegal to actually rent your apartment out without being tourist board registered etc - so if the inspectors had followed up their investigation and VISITED the apartments advertised online, then those fines would have been upheld.
I did argue fiercely with Loaded during the early years of our ownership regarding the legal use of apartments, based on the information and facts I have outlined in my previous post, but I have learnt since I was a being a bit stupid at that time and have have also learnt that he was mostly right and I had better reconsider my position.
Thanks Peter.
I am not sure isn't that what lawyers call "entrapment" ????
Apparently it's classed as making a test purchase.
Peterrayner
17-09-2013, 15:51
Apparently it's classed as making a test purchase.
Yes agreed. In the UK trading standards officers can make a test purchase ie a pizza to test all ingredients are as advertised ie beef not horse :) and that the products are fit for use, but thats not the same as inducing someone to break the law and then prosecuting them.
Apparently it's classed as making a test purchase.
Lol...be a laugh they book online with one of those rip off merchants who take bookings but just keep your money..:laugh:
Yes agreed. In the UK trading standards officers can make a test purchase ie a pizza to test all ingredients are as advertised ie beef not horse :) and that the products are fit for use, but thats not the same as inducing someone to break the law and then prosecuting them.
If the property concerned is on a complex where it's illegal to holiday let, they can hardly be accused of inducement to commit an offence, can they !!!!
Peterrayner
17-09-2013, 16:35
If the property concerned is on a complex where it's illegal to holiday let, they can hardly be accused of inducement to commit an offence, can they !!!!
er Yes ???
golf birdie
17-09-2013, 16:37
apartment inspectors = epic failure.
apartment inspectors = epic failure.
Internet "apartment" inspectors = epic failure.
We are yet to hear about the actual apartment inspectors.
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
^^^^^agree 100%
What this fiasco does prove is that just because a government says this is the law it's not necessarily so
It was badly drafted in respect of understanding the way the Internet works and how the law should apply to it
This is a prime example as to why the individual must have the right to challenge any new law as to its legitimate standing
What this fiasco does prove is that just because a government says this is the law it's not necessarily so
It was badly drafted in respect of understanding the way the Internet works and how the law should apply to it
This is a prime example as to why the individual must have the right to challenge any new law as to its legitimate standing
No fiasco, no challenged Laws, only the Government cant use an Internet add alone as evidence of illegal holiday letting.
The letting Laws are the same as before Janets report.
No fiasco, no challenged Laws, only the Government cant use an Internet add alone as evidence of illegal holiday letting.
The letting Laws are the same as before Janets report.
No fiasco?..Seriously?..lol
I would have thought they'd have researched their strategy before it reached this stage.
Wages paid out. Lawyers fees paid out. Compensation claims to fight. I very much doubt that they'll be able to cover that with the remaining percentage of completed fines.
Interestingly, when you say no challenged laws, I do wonder if Alotca and whoever else put up a fight hadn't challenged the ruling, would the government have pressed on or would they have worked it out for themselves that they were in the wrong with regard to the internet.
I also wonder if the inspectors are working today or have they been hauled back in until a better plan is formulated?
It's clear the inspectors realized they were in the wrong lines before ALOTCA did because the inspectors changed their approach. They realized , or were told by their own legal team that interest evidence alone was not enough for a conviction.
We all spotted it on here, as did ALOTCA.
Angusjim
18-09-2013, 08:04
No fiasco?..Seriously?..lol
I would have thought they'd have researched their strategy before it reached this stage.
Wages paid out. Lawyers fees paid out. Compensation claims to fight. I very much doubt that they'll be able to cover that with the remaining percentage of completed fines.
Interestingly, when you say no challenged laws, I do wonder if Alotca and whoever else put up a fight hadn't challenged the ruling, would the government have pressed on or would they have worked it out for themselves that they were in the wrong with regard to the internet.
I also wonder if the inspectors are working today or have they been hauled back in until a better plan is formulated?
Not a better plan just a plan:laugh::laugh:
Peterrayner
18-09-2013, 08:22
It's clear the inspectors realized they were in the wrong lines before ALOTCA did because the inspectors changed their approach. They realized , or were told by their own legal team that interest evidence alone was not enough for a conviction.
We all spotted it on here, as did ALOTCA.
Yes it was clear they changed the wording on the notifications, but as Janet and Doreen have both intimated, it seems they still were basing the proceedings soley on internet evidence only and has such believe at least 90% of the current actions will fail.
Yes they might well change their approach and seek more secure evidence based on site visits...but to me at least this might well be a far from a simple exercise of just knocking on suspects doors.
It has taken our community some SEVEN years to get someone to court and we are still waiting for a hearing date.
It took 3 years alone to successfully get legal papers served, despite lawyers, police and court officers calling numerous times to her home address and even to her place of work.
Yes it was clear they changed the wording on the notifications, but as Janet and Doreen have both intimated, it seems they still were basing the proceedings soley on internet evidence only and has such believe at least 90% of the current actions will fail.
Yes they might well change their approach and seek more secure evidence based on site visits...but to me at least this might well be a far from a simple exercise of just knocking on suspects doors.
It has taken our community some SEVEN years to get someone to court and we are still waiting for a hearing date.
It took 3 years alone to successfully get legal papers served, despite lawyers, police and court officers calling numerous times to her home address and even to her place of work.
Agree that prosecution can take time but I'd say that government inspectors actions take much less time that a community vs an owner. This is already clearly the case because like you say it's taken your community 7 years on one case (our community has similar cases) - yet the government managed to drag all of these "illegal letters" to court within 2/3 years.
The absolute best that can come out of this scenario is that all the owners get away with their "first" offense, and after this episode learn from their mistakes and follow the law.
That won't happen , instead the British expat community will spread word that "all the illegal renters cases got thrown out of court and you can advertise on the Internet again".
And so the wheel turns once again!
Fivepence
18-09-2013, 09:16
No fiasco, no challenged Laws, only the Government cant use an Internet add alone as evidence of illegal holiday letting.
The letting Laws are the same as before Janets report.
Yes, for the time being Mark.
Everyone agrees that private letting needed to be regulated for the safety of the customer and to ensue taxes are paid.
However is the 3rd party (sole trader) necessary?
My opinion is no.
Altamira
18-09-2013, 09:37
Excessive Fines It appears to me that if the fines had been set at the minimum first offence level of 1,500 euros, then the vast majority would have paid and that would have been taken as an admission of guilt. I believe it was the excessive fines that led to the formation of ALOTCA and as a result we are now observing a political/touristic farce.
As I said its entirely the governments faulty in drafting useless laws and not laying down clear rules of operation to inspectors or is it the simple fact the government knew they were wro NGO and were chancing their luck that there would be no serious challenges
Either way it appears they have made fools of themselves
canary boy
18-09-2013, 09:47
the fines have been made null and void and hopefully everyone gets there money back, but this is before our solicitors have fought our case in court,even when they back track for more sound evidence our solicitors still have our issues to fight the rulings and they have to get the evidence from the guests in illegal lettings? and knocking on doors? whos going to be indoors during the day? If you were on holiday and someone knocked at the door would you happily answer there questions?
Yes, I agree with some of the above. One can only wonder if they actually have the resources to press on given that there's no guaranteed win for them.
I would imagine the Alotca solicitors et al haven't yet put all their cards on the table.
Altamira
18-09-2013, 10:22
the fines have been made null and void and hopefully everyone gets there money back, but this is before our solicitors have fought our case in court,even when they back track for more sound evidence our solicitors still have our issues to fight the rulings and they have to get the evidence from the guests in illegal lettings? and knocking on doors? whos going to be indoors during the day? If you were on holiday and someone knocked at the door would you happily answer there questions?Quality of Evidence So far it has been accepted that internet advertizing on its own is insufficient evidence. Some have suggested that this may account for 90% of the cases, however it is more likely to account for less than that. If the Canary Government are serious about stopping the illegal lettings, then they will go to great lengths and make sure to get quality evidence and I believe the resulting fines will be scary, especially if owners have been caught abusing the friends & family scenario.
Fivepence
18-09-2013, 10:35
Rent your apartment = illegal.
Sole agent rents your apartment for a cut = legal.
Ridiculous law, badly thought out and poorly implemented.
canary boy
18-09-2013, 11:02
Yes, I agree with some of the above. One can only wonder if they actually have the resources to press on given that there's no guaranteed win for them.
I would imagine the Alotca solicitors et al haven't yet put all their cards on the table.
I can assure the solicitors have not and when or if the more aggressive inspections start im sure there will be more ammunition for the solicitors to get there teeth into.....crickey this is going to last for ever
boredinscotland
18-09-2013, 11:26
I am looking for 1 bed long let on El Mirador or El Rincon, from January but flexible on dates
Surely everyone that rents an apartment should have to have their apartment checked by the tourist board for health and safety, given a grade and a licence with appropriate books etc issued for a fee. This could be done through the agent or on a single basis and then the tourist board should liase with the tax authority to ensure taxes are paid.
Simple. If found advertising for rentals this should be checked and then stopped if there is no licence.
I dont understand why the authorities dont just get their heads into gear and get organising for once in their lives!
Fivepence
18-09-2013, 12:46
Surely everyone that rents an apartment should have to have their apartment checked by the tourist board for health and safety, given a grade and a licence with appropriate books etc issued for a fee. This could be done through the agent or on a single basis and then the tourist board should liase with the tax authority to ensure taxes are paid.
Simple. If found advertising for rentals this should be checked and then stopped if there is no licence.
I dont understand why the authorities dont just get their heads into gear and get organising for once in their lives!
I agree, common sense and logical.
No need for a sole agent to take some of the income from an owners investment.
Owners don't need a Cuckoo in their nest.
canary boy
18-09-2013, 13:04
Bo peep your talking about the Portuguese way ,they would find it hard to change the law concerning residential because of all the health and safety standards that have to be implemented eg life guards fire regulations etc most residential complexes do not have any of these
Fivepence
18-09-2013, 13:11
Bo peep your talking about the Portuguese way ,they would find it hard to change the law concerning residential because of all the health and safety standards that have to be implemented eg life guards fire regulations etc most residential complexes do not have any of these
Aye, they are hot on Health and Safety in Spain and The Canary Islands.............the footpaths are full of deep holes and a lot of the wiring looks like Heath Robinson has done the work. etc
I am not talking any particular country, I am simply saying what I consider should be done.
If there is a residential complex that wants to go touristic then it should be voted upon and the changes made if that is possible, if it is not possible or the vote 'for' isnt high enough then it should remain residential.
Its hard if you have bought in the wrong area but thats life.
Albatros
18-09-2013, 13:27
Bo peep your talking about the Portuguese way ,they would find it hard to change the law concerning residential because of all the health and safety standards that have to be implemented eg life guards fire regulations etc most residential complexes do not have any of these
It never fails to amaze me how little attention is paid to H&S standards in the apartments on Tenerife. Smoke alarms are even fitted to all houses in the UK. The fire Department will even supply and fit them in many places. You are right about Portugal though, they seem to be much more strict in the regulation in that respect.
canary boy
18-09-2013, 13:43
we had an inspection concerning health and safety only a few weeks ago and that's on a residential complex
Peterrayner
18-09-2013, 14:00
I am not talking any particular country, I am simply saying what I consider should be done.
If there is a residential complex that wants to go touristic then it should be voted upon and the changes made if that is possible, if it is not possible or the vote 'for' isnt high enough then it should remain residential.
Its hard if you have bought in the wrong area but thats life.
Technically I think that is already possible even under the current laws for a residential complex to obtain a touristic licence, but it requires 100% of the owners to vote to agree, then an agent to acquire 50%+1 of the owners willing to sign up to him, so has to be able to register with the Tourismo.
So in reality its not likely to happen.
Even under the current regime residential owners have a legal and constitutional right of private and personal use, what is commonly reffered to has the "family and friends" concession.
There are however some strict conditions attached to this aspect, namely; a) you cannot advertise for friends, b) nor can you make an open offer to the general public to rent the apartment on a weekly basis, c) nor can you offer any touristic services such as airport transfers, excursions, or meals etc.
Such personal use should also be limited to maybe 5-6 times a year to avoid being deemed commercial activity, which it would be if friends were in residence for say 40 weeks a year.
This would be deemed as commercial letting under the 1995 Law and this remains illegal even with the latest rulings on internet ads based inspections.
Well at least you get it Peter
Peterrayner
18-09-2013, 14:04
we had an inspection concerning health and safety only a few weeks ago and that's on a residential complex
We have had regular inspections over the years, and we have had to fix fencing and gates around the pools, fumigate the drains annually, repair the pools, provide showers and changing rooms for the cleaners, and lately installed hundreds of fire extinguishers on the communal walkways and landings.
All this on a residential complex.
But these inspections are carried out by the Works Department not the Tourismo.
- - - - - - - - - - merged double post - - - - - - - - - -
Well at least you get it Peter
your forgot my x :)
poacher turner gamekeeper some might say. :(
Technically I think that is already possible even under the current laws for a residential complex to obtain a touristic licence, but it requires 100% of the owners to vote to agree, then an agent to acquire 50%+1 of the owners willing to sign up to him, so has to be able to register with the Tourismo.
So in reality its not likely to happen.
Even under the current regime residential owners have a legal and constitutional right of private and personal use, what is commonly reffered to has the "family and friends" concession.
There are however some strict conditions attached to this aspect, namely; a) you cannot advertise for friends, b) nor can you make an open offer to the general public to rent the apartment on a weekly basis, c) nor can you offer any touristic services such as airport transfers, excursions, or meals etc.
Such personal use should also be limited to maybe 5-6 times a year to avoid being deemed commercial activity, which it would be if friends were in residence for say 40 weeks a year.
This would be deemed as commercial letting under the 1995 Law and this remains illegal even with the latest rulings on internet ads based inspections.
Is it as easy as that ??
My understanding (through JA's website and various answers on this thread) is that it is the actual land the complex is built on that is classified as Residential or Touristic, not the complex - I'm sure Loaded will correct me if I'm wrong.
If that is the case, even a 100% vote in favour would still require the residents to approach Cabildo to try and get the land reclassified with no real guarantee of success.
Is it as easy as that ??
My understanding (through JA's website and various answers on this thread) is that it is the actual land the complex is built on that is classified as Residential or Touristic, not the complex - I'm sure Loaded will correct me if I'm wrong.
If that is the case, even a 100% vote in favour would still require the residents to approach Cabildo to try and get the land reclassified with no real guarantee of success.
Correct
Not able to get that done at the moment, there maybe some hope if it's for a 5 star hotel
Red Devil
18-09-2013, 17:42
Technically I think that is already possible even under the current laws for a residential complex to obtain a touristic licence, but it requires 100% of the owners to vote to agree, then an agent to acquire 50%+1 of the owners willing to sign up to him, so has to be able to register with the Tourismo.
So in reality its not likely to happen.
Even under the current regime residential owners have a legal and constitutional right of private and personal use, what is commonly reffered to has the "family and friends" concession
There are however some strict conditions attached to this aspect, namely; a) you cannot advertise for friends, b) nor can you make an open offer to the general public to rent the apartment on a weekly basis, c) nor can you offer any touristic services such as airport transfers, excursions, or meals etc.
Such personal use should also be limited to maybe 5-6 times a year to avoid being deemed commercial activity, which it would be if friends were in residence for say 40 weeks a year.
This would be deemed as commercial letting under the 1995 Law and this remains illegal even with the latest rulings on internet ads based inspections.
Peter I agree with most of what you say apart from your interpretation of family & friends limitation.
There is no law that stops an owner from allowing any genuine personal guests from staying in their own apartment, for whatever period of time, whether the owner is present or not. By the same token there are no conditions attached to this, it is just not mentioned in tourist law.
Obviously anyone who takes commercial bookings but calling them family/ friend, then advertising and taking payment etc is breaking the law.
remember that there is a legal opinion that the 1995 laws are illegal under the bolkestein eu law. The canary govt have to decide whether to start again with attacks especially against the touristic owners who may defeat them at higher courts or at eu level.
As to the govt seeing sense and abandoning sole agency in favour of normal renting by individuals, well I think that has more to do with a friendly commercial/political closeness between the hotel lobby/mafia and certain politicians. We have an ex asshotel man as govt minister. What it might take to sort that could be a judical investigation into the situation or the govt trying to enforce the 1995 laws against touristics and failing in the courts.
But in reality people renting out their holiday homes on the popular internet sites is a completely normal and uncontroversial activity, a significant and growing part of tourist accomodation the world over.
It needs regulating and standards enforcing, but not attacking senselessly and destroying.
Imagine if the crackdown had been to demand an annual permit to get everyone legal. Instead of 18000 euro fines imagine a demand to register and be given a permit to holiday let, payment required 1200 in the first year and then the same in future years. We would have all paid our dues and got the tourists filling the resorts, plus look at the money the govt could have had.
Thats was the way they should have gone in 2010.
remember that there is a legal opinion that the 1995 laws are illegal under the bolkestein eu law. The canary govt have to decide whether to start again with attacks especially against the touristic owners who may defeat them at higher courts or at eu level.
Oh please, nelson, we have been through all this before ... we had some comments by an English solicitor who is not qualified to practice SPANISH law and who seems to have based his views on a few sentences in a case about Tourist Guides. The other cases he mentioned were not relevant - in fact they would seem to go against his argument in that they affirmed that the 1995 law had in fact been amended as required by the Services Directive/Bolkestein Law.
remember that there is a legal opinion that the 1995 laws are illegal under the bolkestein eu law. The canary govt have to decide whether to start again with attacks especially against the touristic owners who may defeat them at higher courts or at eu level.
As to the govt seeing sense and abandoning sole agency in favour of normal renting by individuals, well I think that has more to do with a friendly commercial/political closeness between the hotel lobby/mafia and certain politicians. We have an ex asshotel man as govt minister. What it might take to sort that could be a judical investigation into the situation or the govt trying to enforce the 1995 laws against touristics and failing in the courts.
But in reality people renting out their holiday homes on the popular internet sites is a completely normal and uncontroversial activity, a significant and growing part of tourist accomodation the world over.
It needs regulating and standards enforcing, but not attacking senselessly and destroying.
Imagine if the crackdown had been to demand an annual permit to get everyone legal. Instead of 18000 euro fines imagine a demand to register and be given a permit to holiday let, payment required 1200 in the first year and then the same in future years. We would have all paid our dues and got the tourists filling the resorts, plus look at the money the govt could have had.
Thats was the way they should have gone in 2010.
A friend of mine and his wife who are both barristers (his specialism is UK Company Law and hers is EU Company Law) both state that the Bolkenstein Directive quite clearly states that a member state is free to implement ant local laws which they see fit to protect any services which they regard as important to their economy and as you keep telling us, tourism is vital to the Canaries economy.
Interestingly, they also reckon that a private individual would find it very difficult to bring a case using it - they say that it is designed to allow Companies, not individuals, to operate across member state borders.
A friend of mine and his wife who are both barristers (his specialism is UK Company Law and hers is EU Company Law) both state that the Bolkenstein Directive quite clearly states that a member state is free to implement ant local laws which they see fit to protect any services which they regard as important to their economy and as you keep telling us, tourism is vital to the Canaries economy.
Interestingly, they also reckon that a private individual would find it very difficult to bring a case using it - they say that it is designed to allow Companies, not individuals, to operate across member state borders.
That post sounds to me like complete claptrap. I often follow your input on here with great interest, your contribution and attitude to me and my views are very unique. Sometimes taking tittle tattle over to the ja site .
If you had claimed a single barrister friend and given some sort of legal opinion from him/ her then I might not have smelt a rat , but really bob mac, after all the weeks of debate about bolkestein that you have already contributed to you now suddenly bring in this husband and wife barrister duo, your friends the both of them. One a uk expert the other a eu expert. And both of them agree that bolkestein is a law exclusively for companies not individuals.
Mmmmn, well as I said before laws apply to all legal entities.i think bobmac you are having a laugh here with your barrister friends, has anyone ever known such a couple?
Wait a minute , of course, tony and cherie Blair!
Sorry for doubting you bobmac
Peterrayner
18-09-2013, 20:35
Peter I agree with most of what you say apart from your interpretation of family & friends limitation.
There is no law that stops an owner from allowing any genuine personal guests from staying in their own apartment, for whatever period of time, whether the owner is present or not. By the same token there are no conditions attached to this, it is just not mentioned in tourist law.
Obviously anyone who takes commercial bookings but calling them family/ friend, then advertising and taking payment etc is breaking the law.
My comments in respect of the legitimate "family & friends" concession are based on the qualified opinions of, both my gestor, Marcus Cabrera, and the lawyer Jose Escobedo.
Lol at Nelson ! Actually made me laugh
Red Devil
18-09-2013, 21:44
My comments in respect of the legitimate "family & friends" concession are based on the qualified opinions of, both my gestor, Marcus Cabrera, and the lawyer Jose Escobedo.
Yes but having legitimate invited guests isnt a concession, it is a right and doesnt come under any touristic jurisdiction!
If, for example, my uncle wanted to use my apartment and came for 2 weeks every month of the year, as long as he had my permission and he was a "true" guest no one would legally have the right to stop him because neither he, nor I, are breaking any law.
Think you will also find JA has similar opinion. :)
That advice was also given to me by Marcos Cabrera, my gestor. Think they are probably trying to cover all options.
Peterrayner
19-09-2013, 06:55
Yes but having legitimate invited guests isnt a concession, it is a right and doesnt come under any touristic jurisdiction!
If, for example, my uncle wanted to use my apartment and came for 2 weeks every month of the year, as long as he had my permission and he was a "true" guest no one would legally have the right to stop him because neither he, nor I, are breaking any law.
Think you will also find JA has similar opinion. :)
That advice was also given to me by Marcos Cabrera, my gestor. Think they are probably trying to cover all options.
Yes you are totally right :0
My use of the word "concession" was a poor choice in this context and of course personal and private use of your own residential property is a full legal and constitutional right.
I guess my choice of words was influenced by the need to balance these rights with the sometimes vehement opposition from some full time resident owners to having so called holiday makers using the complex whether they are legally invited guests or not :(
If I decide to lend an apartment to any other person friend relative or stranger it has nothing to do with any authorities surely it is only when the owner profits in some way either cash or some other recompense that it could be deemed to be commercial letting
Peterrayner
19-09-2013, 07:12
I am told that providing you don't openly offer or advertise, the use of your holiday home, to the general public at large for a weekly commercial rental, then whatever arrangements you make are a private matter between you and your invited guests, just like they would be if you invited someone to stay in your main home.
Angusjim
19-09-2013, 07:16
I am told that providing you don't openly offer or advertise, the use of your holiday home, to the general public at large for a weekly commercial rental, then whatever arrangements you make are a private matter between you and your invited guests, just like they would be if you invited someone to stay in your main home.
I think there are large amount of apartments being let out on this basis:wink:
Peterrayner
19-09-2013, 07:33
This is the way this discussion always goes sadly with the inference being that the system is open to being abused and I don't doubt in some cases this is true.
I had an immediate neighbour below complain about some of my private family guests staying for 2 weeks, despite the apartment being totally unused and empty for the 12 weeks prior to their arrival.
Angusjim
19-09-2013, 07:41
This is the way this discussion always goes sadly with the inference being that the system is open to being abused and I don't doubt in some cases this is true.
I had an immediate neighbour below complain about some of my private family guests staying for 2 weeks, despite the apartment being totally unused and empty for the 12 weeks prior to their arrival.
I can think of one residential complex that I know well that still has loads of holiday lets and owners never advertise its full of repeat business
Peterrayner
19-09-2013, 07:45
holiday lets paying rent are commercial...private and personal use is not.
Angusjim
19-09-2013, 07:48
holiday lets paying rent are commercial...private and personal use is not.
I do not disagree
Peterrayner
19-09-2013, 07:55
you might not Jim but some residents don't or wont see the distinction,
but thankfully not all of them :) and some of those are great friends and even better neighbours.
Angusjim
19-09-2013, 07:56
you might not Jim but many residents don't or wont see the distinction.
Thats what I mean illegal letting is still very much alive and kicking
I can think of one residential complex that I know well that still has loads of holiday lets and owners never advertise its full of repeat business
Agreed AJ,
try getting into Parque Margarita. Not bad considering it's residential..lol
It's a tight knit community and if you can't get in with one, they'll ask some of the others. They don't need to advertise.
Unfortunately that is against the law, with or without the internet but who's going to stop them? Even all the holidaymakers know each other never mind the owners. They'd be a hard nut to crack to get information out of even if you could get through the coded entry system.
I know a lot of them and I believe that given the chance to register properly, they'd pay their dues on the income. They definitely wouldn't be interested in a sole agent though.
I would add, I'm not against sole agents, I just feel that they aren't required in some places and Margarita proves that.
Agreed AJ,
try getting into Parque Margarita. Not bad considering it's residential..lol
It's a tight knit community and if you can't get in with one, they'll ask some of the others. They don't need to advertise.
Unfortunately that is against the law, with or without the internet but who's going to stop them? Even all the holidaymakers know each other never mind the owners. They'd be a hard nut to crack to get information out of even if you could get through the coded entry system.
I know a lot of them and I believe that given the chance to register properly, they'd pay their dues on the income. They definitely wouldn't be interested in a sole agent though.
I would add, I'm not against sole agents, I just feel that they aren't required in some places and Margarita proves that.
Ah the democratic republic of Parque Margarita.....
Red Devil
19-09-2013, 08:51
This is the way this discussion always goes sadly with the inference being that the system is open to being abused and I don't doubt in some cases this is true.
I had an immediate neighbour below complain about some of my private family guests staying for 2 weeks, despite the apartment being totally unused and empty for the 12 weeks prior to their arrival.
Unfortunately thats the problem isnt it, everyone has suspicious minds and becomes the complex police!!
I would like a neighbour try to cause a problem to me about my legitimate guests :angry:
Peterrayner
19-09-2013, 09:29
I am taking my 3 year old grandson with me for two weeks, then he might have reason to complain :) :jumping::jumping::jumping:
Thankfully not "everyone" is the same
Nearly all my fellow owners, ex-pats and locals alike, are wonderful, friendly and considerate.
Fivepence
19-09-2013, 09:32
I am taking my 3 year old grandson with me for two weeks, then he might have reason to complain :)
They are great at 3 years old Peter, well 3/4 are the best ages in my opinion.
Peterrayner
19-09-2013, 09:37
They are great at 3 years old Peter, well 3/4 are the best ages in my opinion.
took him last year but on my own and his mother. I didn't sit down for 2 weeks but enjoyed every second.
This year I have my 3 other brothers in tow. Party Time:party4::party4::party4:
That post sounds to me like complete claptrap. I often follow your input on here with great interest, your contribution and attitude to me and my views are very unique. Sometimes taking tittle tattle over to the ja site .
If you had claimed a single barrister friend and given some sort of legal opinion from him/ her then I might not have smelt a rat , but really bob mac, after all the weeks of debate about bolkestein that you have already contributed to you now suddenly bring in this husband and wife barrister duo, your friends the both of them. One a uk expert the other a eu expert. And both of them agree that bolkestein is a law exclusively for companies not individuals.
Mmmmn, well as I said before laws apply to all legal entities.i think bobmac you are having a laugh here with your barrister friends, has anyone ever known such a couple?
Wait a minute , of course, tony and cherie Blair!
Sorry for doubting you bobmac
Nelson, if you seriously think that I would invent friends to use like this, you're an even bigger plonker than I thought you were.
I actually have 4 friends who work in the legal profession, 1 barrister who's wife is also a barrister, and 3 lawyers, one of whose wife is training to be a barrister.
Before I retired, I was chairman of the local branch of a professional institute and for 5 years I was there representative on the committee of a group where all the local professional institutes met up regularly to discuss shared events on our programme of monthly meetings and produced an annual diary of all events being run by the participating institutes which went out to all the local members of these institutes.
This group covered everything from Accounting to Town Planning - I represented one of the IT institutes and made very good friends in many of the other institutes, including the ones from legal professions, over the years and still see them regularly.
canary boy
19-09-2013, 16:17
wow you guys are far to intelligent for me, makes you wonder why your on this forum all the time
Ah the democratic republic of Parque Margarita.....
And not forgetting the Princapality of El Mirador.:wink:
Angusjim
19-09-2013, 16:46
And not forgetting the Princapality of El Mirador.:wink:
I hear its more for the riff raff but I suppose they have to stay some where, seemingly also a big problem with drunken women there:lol::cheers2:
:vodkamachine::drunks2:
I hear its more for the riff raff but I suppose they have to stay some where, seemingly also a big problem with drunken women there:lol::cheers2:
But the drunken women there don't have a problem, they have Chunky Marbro and Ecky Thump to carry them home.:drunk2::drunks2
Nelson, if you seriously think that I would invent friends to use like this, you're an even bigger plonker than I thought you were.
I actually have 4 friends who work in the legal profession, 1 barrister who's wife is also a barrister, and 3 lawyers, one of whose wife is training to be a barrister.
Before I retired, I was chairman of the local branch of a professional institute and for 5 years I was there representative on the committee of a group where all the local professional institutes met up regularly to discuss shared events on our programme of monthly meetings and produced an annual diary of all events being run by the participating institutes which went out to all the local members of these institutes.
This group covered everything from Accounting to Town Planning - I represented one of the IT institutes and made very good friends in many of the other institutes, including the ones from legal professions, over the years and still see them regularly.
When you are in a hole it's best to stop digging. You protest two much me thinks,
The evidence is clear, you have only just mentioned mr and mrs expert barristers, you did not raise the issue at the time of the bolkestein debate. In any event surely you did not get them to give you an in depth view of the letting laws and bolkestein in casual conversation at the rotary club?
They could never have told you that the law is exclusively for limited companies as that's plain wrong, laws apply to all legal entities.
Nelly having a stab at humor
How embarrassing
When you are in a hole it's best to stop digging. You protest two much me thinks,
The evidence is clear, you have only just mentioned mr and mrs expert barristers, you did not raise the issue at the time of the bolkestein debate. In any event surely you did not get them to give you an in depth view of the letting laws and bolkestein in casual conversation at the rotary club?
They could never have told you that the law is exclusively for limited companies as that's plain wrong, laws apply to all legal entities.
Read back nelson, BobMac did not say "exclusively" .... and I do not find "Mr & Mrs" unusual at all - girl I was in College with also married another Barrister soon after she started practicing Law ... Both are senior Judges now and I am aware of several other legal couples ... a lot of people meet their other half in the workplace :)
Altamira
20-09-2013, 10:49
Nelson, if you seriously think that I would invent friends to use like this, you're an even bigger plonker than I thought you were.
I actually have 4 friends who work in the legal profession, 1 barrister who's wife is also a barrister, and 3 lawyers, one of whose wife is training to be a barrister.
Before I retired, I was chairman of the local branch of a professional institute and for 5 years I was there representative on the committee of a group where all the local professional institutes met up regularly to discuss shared events on our programme of monthly meetings and produced an annual diary of all events being run by the participating institutes which went out to all the local members of these institutes.
This group covered everything from Accounting to Town Planning - I represented one of the IT institutes and made very good friends in many of the other institutes, including the ones from legal professions, over the years and still see them regularly.
Lawyers You are very fortunate to have so many lawyer friends and I don't think anyone doubts what you are saying. I think Nelson is just messing with your head, so I would not be too offended by his wind up tactics. I assume you obtained good legal advice before purchasing a Tenerife property, if so then you were one of the lucky ones.
Angusjim
20-09-2013, 10:57
Good old Nelson he knows how to push the buttons I sometimes wonder if he actually owns on Sol Y Sur or is he just on the wind up:laugh::laugh::c2::c2:
Wish Nelson would stop trying to bully people....
Shows you don't need a nice apartment to be an asshole
cheers
x
Angusjim
20-09-2013, 13:51
Shows you don't need a nice apartment to be an asshole
cheers
x
That's a bit strong
Shows you don't need a nice apartment to be an asshole
cheers
x
You're living proof of that......:laugh:
Altamira
21-09-2013, 13:03
[I]Shows you don't need a nice apartment to be an asshole
Nice Apartment Hello 9 Plus, are you suggesting that Bobmac does not have a nice apartment.
lol only serious answers from now on please
x
Ecky Thump
21-09-2013, 13:44
Shows you don't need a nice apartment to be an asshole
cheers
x
You're living proof of that......:laugh:
I live in a house, tonto
Nice Apartment Hello 9 Plus, are you suggesting that Bobmac does not have a nice apartment.
lol only serious answers from now on pleasex
Is this going to be a discussion on what the legal definition is of a Asshole who owns a apartment or someone who lives in a house who maybe a Asshole!:confused::laugh:
Altamira
21-09-2013, 15:04
Is this going to be a discussion on what the legal definition is of a Asshole who owns a apartment or someone who lives in a house who maybe a Asshole!:confused::laugh:
Nice Apartment This is perhaps one for the lawyers to define, but it appears as though the term asshole is used by 9plus to describe a particular individual who does not own a nice apartment in Tenerife. I assume 9plus is not talking about himself, but who knows!!!
Fivepence
21-09-2013, 15:27
Nice Apartment This is perhaps one for the lawyers to define, but it appears as though the term asshole is used by 9plus to describe a particular individual who does not own a nice apartment in Tenerife. I assume 9plus is not talking about himself, but who knows!!!
Serious answer..............
Nice apartment = Legal
Not so nice apartment = Illegal
Good cop.........Bad cop
Nuke um all. :whistle:
- - - - - - - - - - merged double post - - - - - - - - - -
Nice Apartment This is perhaps one for the lawyers to define, but it appears as though the term asshole is used by 9plus to describe a particular individual who does not own a nice apartment in Tenerife. I assume 9plus is not talking about himself, but who knows!!!
Serious answer..............
Nice apartment = Legal
Not so nice apartment = Illegal
Good cop.........Bad cop
Nuke um all. :whistle:
Ha Ha the forum still thinks it's Fred Elliott
canary boy
25-09-2013, 08:40
tomorrow is the day and no sign of the tourismo throwing in the towel
Fivepence
25-09-2013, 12:16
tomorrow is the day and no sign of the tourismo throwing in the towel
nor will nelson I suspect.
Good on him. :wave:
I_N_Cognito
03-10-2013, 16:12
tomorrow is the day and no sign of the tourismo throwing in the towel
And what happened ?
canary boy
04-10-2013, 13:52
manana manana
And what happened ?
ñ ñ
.............
Is that some form of new language you have just invented, or some form of hieroglyphics?
When can we expect an answer in English of what the current position is.
I note that your "friend" John Hatrick had something to say in the current edition of Island Connections on the subject.
If the court case(s) did take place on the 26th of this month, and some sort of decision was made, then there are a lot of people
who would like to know what it was. Does the Saga continue indefinately - or is there to be a likely outcome sometime in the not too distant future?.
I cant see the John Hatrick piece in Island Connections online...have you got a link or can you tell us a little more about his perspective?
Fivepence
05-10-2013, 09:59
Yeah John Hatrick and 9PLUS are best of buddies...........:crylaughing:
Mark will love that. :whistle:
Dont quite understand that, I just like to hear everyones perspective and I have no loaded reasons, just interest.
Fivepence
05-10-2013, 10:11
Dont quite understand that, I just like to hear everyones perspective and I have no loaded reasons, just interest.
Sorry, the forum didn't post the quotes ....see post #8597 above.
Its a very good article again from John Hatrick, he makes some interesting points. To view it online you go to the online page then click the picture showing the normal printed paper, its near the top. That gives you the ability to read the printed paper in pdf, the article is on page 34.
Basically the article is saying that the canary govt are aware that their mad law will not get past eu legal scrutiny anf indeed if the cases go to europe the whole mad alice in wonderland nonsense will end, so result free trade in self catering holiday rentals like the rest of western europe. The article makes the point that the govt admitting that its internet prosecutions are illegal and dropping the cases will at least leave their daft law in place. Whereas if they were to plough on to europe and of course loose then they would have their daft law kicked out.
The article makes the point that they are terrified of loosing their daft law and a free market, so they would rather keep their daft law in place rather than have it thrown out by europe. So better to abandon cases today on the internet defence but hope that they have frieghtened renters off the internet ads and so they in their protectionist minds have restricted the competition in their favour for the future.
What they know would happen at europe legal level would be the end of the daft laws and a free market.
junglejim
05-10-2013, 13:33
So what actually happened at court last week then ??...... anyone ??..... it´s gone very quiet out there even on JA´s site !
I notice Hatrick´s comments at the end on his competency - is he having a dig at 9Plus and Loaded , do you think ?
Even his dig at JA as a Fringe Blog ... Ha Ha !
I would have thought someone with his impeccable qualifications and connections would have at least found out some of his own facts about last week rather than regurgitate JA´s announcement from her website - plagiarism I think it´s called !!
Altamira
05-10-2013, 13:49
So what actually happened at court last week then ??...... anyone ??..... it´s gone very quiet out there even on JA´s site !
I notice Hatrick´s comments at the end on his competency - is he having a dig at 9Plus and Loaded , do you think ?
Even his dig at JA as a Fringe Blog ... Ha Ha !
I would have thought someone with his impeccable qualifications and connections would have at least found out some of his own facts about last week rather than regurgitate JA´s announcement from her website - plagiarism I think it´s called !!
Legal Quagmire I don't normally agree with Hatrick, but he appears to be making some good points. His delivery is improving and it is always good to hear alternative comments & opinions.
http://pdf.islandconnections.eu/705/pdf/island_connections_034.pdf
Oh dear, oh dear ... I think John Hatrick is the only person who would consider Janet's site a "fringe web blog", particularly as she is one of the founding signatories of ALOCTA.
And as to his interpretation of facts, perhaps he should have read said blog a little closer ... this was no "voluntary" announcement, rather it was the result of an appeal by Jose Escobedo to the Presidencia after Turismo had rejected his first response to the fines: this I understand from talking to Jose Escobedo sometime last year, is a standard procedure open to lawyers - appeal to the President, whilst also starting a case against the ruling by Turismo. The resolution from the Presidencia sets a precedent that the Courts must take note of.
And no doubt, all will be published shortly in the Boletin.
As to what happened in the cases last week, we will have to wait - even the most ordinary of cases seems to take a least a week for a judgement to be dictated. Just keep tuning in to that "fringe blog" to hear it first. :)
As far as I can see in Medano it's mainly residents/Canadians who rent out and we have no complexes to speak of and it's all word of mouth anyway
As far as I can see in Medano it's mainly residents/Canadians who rent out and we have no complexes to speak of and it's all word of mouth anyway
It's certainly the case that many have carried on quiet renting despite the crackdown . However I no myself from first hand experience that many have stopped renting and sold their apartments and many are continuing to rent to winter regulars but not getting any spring/summer customers, they would normally have got these clients from their Internet adverts.
In reality throughout the canaries there has been a decline in the rented sector due to the crackdown, though if everyone had packed in everywhere as the govt require, the the result would have been a major economic and social disaster , completely in line with such sensible economic planners like Robert Mugabe and Ido Amin .
Despite significant economic and commercial damage, the canary economy has the many underground and word of mouth renters to thank for continuing to operate and mitigate the damage the canary govt is doing to the canary economy and people. They are saving some jobs in the islands for the time being.
Fivepence
06-10-2013, 10:52
It's certainly the case that many have carried on quiet renting despite the crackdown . However I no myself from first hand experience that many have stopped renting and sold their apartments and many are continuing to rent to winter regulars but not getting any spring/summer customers, they would normally have got these clients from their Internet adverts.
In reality throughout the canaries there has been a decline in the rented sector due to the crackdown, though if everyone had packed in everywhere as the govt require, the the result would have been a major economic and social disaster , completely in line with such sensible economic planners like Robert Mugabe and Ido Amin .
Despite significant economic and commercial damage, the canary economy has the many underground and word of mouth renters to thank for continuing to operate and mitigate the damage the canary govt is doing to the canary economy and people. They are saving some jobs in the islands for the time being.
nelson I broadly support your view but may I respectfully suggest that you stop mentioning despots in your posts...........it does your cause no good and only detracts from your argument. :sorry:
junglejim
06-10-2013, 10:55
nelson I broadly support your view but may I respectfully suggest that you stop mentioning despots in your posts...........it does your cause no good and only detracts from your argument. :sorry:
He hasn´t mentioned Maggie Thatcher , Cameron or the BedroomTax yet !
Angusjim
06-10-2013, 10:58
Or Charles Green :tiphat:
Fivepence
06-10-2013, 11:00
Read this nelson, it's known as Godwin's law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law
Sorry to antagonise a member who broadly supports my reasoning. However I honestly find the original decision by the canary govt to seek to close down the individual renting holiday apartment industry as an act of insane economic planning. To actually move to completely close down all the private renters in the canaries, removing the apartments from the shop window of the Internet advertising sites at a stroke, I can not personally place such an policy as being decided by a reasonable democratic govt with a full economic department to advise on such a sudden and extreme policy. Then on top of that I also can not personally place the level of fine which this govt put on the private renters , around 18,000 euros , as the reasonable action of a fair and normal western europeon democratic govt.
To my mind both the decision to seek to close down the private renting industry and the level of fines imposed are exactly the sort of thing that Mugabe and Amin have done and in Mugabes case is doing to their respective economies.
Amin expelled the entire Asian community overnight on a sudden whim. These people were the powerhouse of Ugandas economy , great entrepreneurs . Amin was jealous of them and expelled them , handing their shops /property to his cronies. All this was a disaster for the Ugandan economy, it meant suffering for ordinary Ugandans.
Mugabwe runs the disasterous Zimbabwe economy in the same way. Everything is run on a whim , he hands industry to faithful cronies. He has removed white farmers from their farms and production has plummeted, the result terrible conditions for ordinary people .
The canary govt have never carried out any market research to consider the fact that peolpe want to enjoy holidays in private apartments.this type of holiday is the customers choice.likewise they have not properly examined the economic impact of seeking to close down the apartment renting overnight .
This is not the reasonable and sensible way of democratic western govt, it smacks of cronism and protectionism. As I have said before, the canary govt have not yet acted in a murderous violent manner, but to mind this mess is exactly how Mugabwe and Amin do/ have done things .
"Sorry to antagonise a member who broadly supports my reasoning".......Your first ten words...
Closely followed by hundreds doing exactly what caused the problem in the first place.
Nelson mate, you need to find a more palatable way of expressing yourself for people to find your posts worth reading.
And I'm on your side!....
Peterrayner
06-10-2013, 13:11
me to. :twak:
Well it seems like I am like the ukip bloke bloom, messing up my arguments with an analogy that's upsetting people that agree with me, must be a Yorkshire thing?
Fair enough point taken, in future when the need arises I will say that the canary govt has acted like a none democratic govt in the crackdown as opposed to the norms of western democracy, I will not mention the names of current or past govts who have acted in the same way and done similar odd things in their economies.
Hope that's ok guys?
Angusjim
06-10-2013, 13:23
Well it seems like I am like the ukip bloke bloom, messing up my arguments with an analogy that's upsetting people that agree with me, must be a Yorkshire thing?
Fair enough point taken, in future when the need arises I will say that the canary govt has acted like a none democratic govt in the crackdown as opposed to the norms of western democracy, I will not mention the names of current or past govts who have acted in the same way and done similar odd things in their economies.
Hope that's ok guys?
Only time will tell:tiphat:
QUOTE=Angusjim;324798]Or Charles Green :tiphat:[/QUOTE]
Are they related?[
- - - - - - - - - - merged double post - - - - - - - - - -
Sorry to antagonise a member who broadly supports my reasoning. However I honestly find the original decision by the canary govt to seek to close down the individual renting holiday apartment industry as an act of insane economic planning. To actually move to completely close down all the private renters in the canaries, removing the apartments from the shop window of the Internet advertising sites at a stroke, I can not personally place such an policy as being decided by a reasonable democratic govt with a full economic department to advise on such a sudden and extreme policy. Then on top of that I also can not personally place the level of fine which this govt put on the private renters , around 18,000 euros , as the reasonable action of a fair and normal western europeon democratic govt.
To my mind both the decision to seek to close down the private renting industry and the level of fines imposed are exactly the sort of thing that Mugabe and Amin have done and in Mugabes case is doing to their respective economies.
Amin expelled the entire Asian community overnight on a sudden whim. These people were the powerhouse of Ugandas economy , great entrepreneurs . Amin was jealous of them and expelled them , handing their shops /property to his cronies. All this was a disaster for the Ugandan economy, it meant suffering for ordinary Ugandans.
Mugabwe runs the disasterous Zimbabwe economy in the same way. Everything is run on a whim , he hands industry to faithful cronies. He has removed white farmers from their farms and production has plummeted, the result terrible conditions for ordinary people .
The canary govt have never carried out any market research to consider the fact that peolpe want to enjoy holidays in private apartments.this type of holiday is the customers choice.likewise they have not properly examined the economic impact of seeking to close down the apartment renting overnight .
This is not the reasonable and sensible way of democratic western govt, it smacks of cronism and protectionism. As I have said before, the canary govt have not yet acted in a murderous violent manner, but to mind this mess is exactly how Mugabwe and Amin do/ have done things .
The Canarian Goverment have and have had over many years a tourist based market research programme.Your suggestion that our goverment hasn't yet acted in a murderous and violent manner is offensive but then you are offensive to everything Canarian.Why are you here and why did you buy here in the first place? Maybe you just thought it was an overseas Blackpool.I suppose you can rent out anything you like there??????
Peterrayner
06-10-2013, 17:50
The Canarian Goverment have and have had over many years a tourist based market research programme.Your suggestion that our goverment hasn't yet acted in a murderous and violent manner is offensive but then you are offensive to everything Canarian.Why are you here and why did you buy here in the first place? Maybe you just thought it was an overseas Blackpool.I suppose you can rent out anything you like there??????
oh the irony of that post.........:whistle:
(in an attempt at getting back on topic) .... nelson, you never told us (or at least I have missed it, if you did) ....what did your lawyer have to say about the latest developments ???
I would say his appraisal is cautious optimism . All should be fine in view of the recent legal ruling, but of course no sensible lawyer would give a firm inclination of victory in case the client lost and felt he had recieved bad council.
Of course final judgement would remain in higher Spanish courts or ultimately Europe in any case.
Albatros
06-10-2013, 19:51
I would say his appraisal is cautious optimism . All should be fine in view of the recent legal ruling, but of course no sensible lawyer would give a firm inclination of victory in case the client lost and felt he had recieved bad council.
Of course final judgement would remain in higher Spanish courts or ultimately Europe in any case.
Wow! That is a very expensive course of action. Who would advise any individual to take that route?
I would say his appraisal is cautious optimism . All should be fine in view of the recent legal ruling, but of course no sensible lawyer would give a firm inclination of victory in case the client lost and felt he had recieved bad council.
Of course final judgement would remain in higher Spanish courts or ultimately Europe in any case.
So what is his proposed course of action ... join forces with Jose Escobedo ?? I trust that he understands, which obviously others do not seem to*, that the ruling regarding internet evidence was due to the appeal by Jose Escobedo, on behalf of his clients, to the President
And has your lawyer actually mentioned taking the case to Europe ???
* .It should be noted that this is an entirely voluntary announcement on the part of the Government. It has not been forced by any Judge’s decision or by any significant developments in the appeal cases ... Contrary to reports in some quarters, the Government appears to have reached this decision voluntarily without any pressure from any Judge or outside group.
http://pdf.islandconnections.eu/705/pdf/island_connections_034.pdf
Certainly if the recent ruling is as a result of the work of Jose Escobedo then he deserves thanks from myself and all others involved, he has achieved a great result for his clients and of course everyone else's . John hatrick writes as you say as if the govt have volunteered the legal climb down on Internet evidence cases, so if the climb down is actually due to Jose Escobedo s work then john hatrick has got that wrong in his article .
Hopefully that can be cleared up. On the ja site originally the other weekend it was not stated that the govt new ruling was directly down to alotca lawyers work, but as I say , if that is the case very well done the lawyers involved.
Sundowner
06-10-2013, 22:02
Let's say the Canaries government is defeated in their efforts to clamp down on illegal renting!
What's to stop them from introducing " the Portuguese system" and charging 5000 Euro for a licence to rent?
When you fight with people who make the laws............there is only one winner......sorry two.....the lawyers win too!
Fivepence
06-10-2013, 22:34
Let's say the Canaries government is defeated in their efforts to clamp down on illegal renting!
What's to stop them from introducing " the Portuguese system" and charging 5000 Euro for a licence to rent?
When you fight with people who make the laws............there is only one winner......sorry two.....the lawyers win too!
I suspect you could be right Vince.
Don't try to heckle the bloke with the microphone...........you usually lose
It would be interesting to see some correct figures from someone as to the number of tourists visiting as I for one am unable to make sense of the various figures quoted in the local papers on an almost weekly basis
A simple answer would be are they up or are they down because every lot I read come up with different ones
I see there's been an announcement on Janet's page....
Basically saying that there'll be another announcement soon...lol....
I see there's been an announcement on Janet's page....
Basically saying that there'll be another announcement soon...lol....
I am sure Janet will not mind me quoting the announcement on her far from "fringe" blog ... I am glad to see it confirms my interpretation of why the ruling re internet evidence was given :)
I am limited in what I can say, but can report that the first cases have now been heard. The defences submitted by Alotca lawyers José Escobedo and Santiago Saenz, Tenerife Litigation, were strong and comprehensive in their own right, and were bolstered considerably by the ruling (see below) from Presidencia-Consejo Consultivo: this ruling, which was made for, and in direct response to submissions from, Escobedo and Saenz, confirmed that inspection by internet alone was illegal.
The first judgments are expected in around a week’s time, with further judgments by the end of this month, and we can say that we have reason to be hopeful. I would qualify this by stressing that our optimism is reserved for those cases defended by Tenerife Litigation, and where inspection was by internet alone, and of course we must bear in mind that, as in any jurisdiction, the judges are autonomous and independent, and it is impossible to predict with certainty what a ruling will be. I will post as soon as we have the first judgment, which will have precedential value for the others to follow. Fingers crossed.
canary boy
14-10-2013, 15:45
Well done to Jose, Janet and all involved we have our money back and although we have won this battle and not the war its a great victory to be celebrated and all that money winging its way back Yahoo, I suggest people invest that money to cover the mortgage when you have not got the long lets in your apartment to cover the mortgage
A small drink is in order i believe
Well done to Jose, Janet and all involved we have our money back and although we have won this battle and not the war its a great victory to be celebrated and all that money winging its way back Yahoo, I suggest people invest that money to cover the mortgage when you have not got the long lets in your apartment to cover the mortgage
A small drink is in order i believe
Anybody wanting the full judges statement/decision just ask
That's great news..........can I book a week in November please?...:laugh:
canary boy
14-10-2013, 16:03
sorry only long lets available from now on
Peterrayner
14-10-2013, 17:03
Anybody wanting the full judges statement/decision just ask
Yes please
Yes please
Update 14 October: I am pleased – to put it mildly – to confirm that we have received the court decision in the first appeals. They have been successful and the judge has nullified the fines. Those who have lodged money with the Court will now be refunded. As I’ve said previously, these rulings have precedential value, so we have every reason for convinced optimism for all other appeals of cases fined on the same grounds, and defended by Alotca with appeals submitted by Escobedo and Saenz. I haven’t smiled this widely for some time, I can tell you!
Taken from Janets website
carolethatch
14-10-2013, 18:40
Well done to Jose, Janet and all involved we have our money back and although we have won this battle and not the war its a great victory to be celebrated and all that money winging its way back Yahoo, I suggest people invest that money to cover the mortgage when you have not got the long lets in your apartment to cover the mortgage
A small drink is in order i believe
So glad for you all, as you say, this is only the first battle, and a big thanks to Janet for keeping everyone informed.
Angusjim
03-11-2013, 14:36
No further news or rumours:dontknow: BUMP BUMP:wave:
canary boy
04-11-2013, 14:07
No further news or rumours:dontknow: BUMP BUMP:wave:
No News is good news
Peterrayner
06-11-2013, 17:35
More cases have now been heard, and the same verdict is being given for them all: these are, of course, just those where the evidence for the fine was based on internet inspection alone. The verdict is being given even where the ostensible reason for the fine is the lack of a complaints book and notice. I say “same verdict” rather than “same judgment” because the tone of the judgments has changed. They are now considerably stronger in our favour, and more critical of both the government, and the tourism law itself.
Thats an interesting development.
Well Admin must have removed that Janet post
junglejim
07-11-2013, 09:52
Well Admin must have removed that Janet post
Yep, 21st Century revisionism , petty !!
Fivepence
07-11-2013, 14:52
Well Admin must have removed that Janet post
I'd read your post before it was removed....thanks.
I don't know the story of what happened re JA but it would seem the relationship is irretrievable...................sad really. :dontknow:
slodgedad
07-11-2013, 15:46
May I remind members that it is against Forum T&Cs to discuss banned members on openForum.
As long as certain members continually flaunt the rules by attempting to place links and references, their posts will be removed.
Well Admin must have removed that Janet post
Yep, 21st Century revisionism , petty !!
I'd read your post before it was removed....thanks.
I don't know the story of what happened re JA but it would seem the relationship is irretrievable...................sad really. :dontknow:
May I remind members that it is against Forum T&Cs to discuss banned members on openForum.
As long as certain members continually flaunt the rules by attempting to place links and references, their posts will be removed.
I'm trying to read between the lines. But I think perhaps it would be best if you removed this post.
delderek
07-11-2013, 19:43
OK try this:
More cases have now been heard, and the same verdict is being given for them all: these are, of course, just those where the evidence for the fine was based on internet inspection alone. The verdict is being given even where the ostensible reason for the fine is the lack of a complaints book and notice. I say “same verdict” rather than “same judgment” because the tone of the judgments has changed. They are now considerably stronger in our favour, and more critical of both the government, and the tourism law itself.
All the judgments so far have come from courts 2 and 4. We have cases in courts 1 and 3 also, and expect the first judgments from them before the end of this year, probably next month. Court 3, as I’ve said before, is the most pro-government of the four, and the only one of them all to insist that the fine money was lodged with the government itself, rather than the Courts. This means that when we get verdicts from court 3, it may take considerably longer to get the money back. Refunds from courts 1, 2 and 4 should be very rapid, and the first formal applications for refunds will be made next week. As I’ve also said before, we are confident of the verdicts now, and should by any chance a different ruling be given, this can be appealed as a “contradictory verdict”.
As I’ve said before as well, because the fines were less than €30,000, the courts had the power to prevent any further appeals, and they have done this. Because Turismo rejected the courts’ suggestion of a class action, however, we still have many more cases to steer individually through all four courts, and even with several a day being heard, it will be May 2014 before we expect to get judgments on them all. This should give a fair idea of quite how many fines were issued – illegally, as we now have it from both courts and Presidencia-Consejo Consultivo.
I had a meeting this morning with José Escobedo and Santiago Saenz in view of the above, and we agreed that since we now have multiple “sentencias firme” (final judgments), it is a good time to look to the future. Alotca was never formed simply to defend fines, but to be a lobbying association on behalf of owners affected by the legislation. Although I am president of Alotca for this year, it is an association with five founder members, and so I hope the following will be taken as reflections of this morning’s meeting and thinking aloud in writing, rather than as firm statements to which I, or we, will be held if future events are slightly different.
We think that the judges’ comments in the more recent appeal rulings are very strong, and that there is now a clear case, and perhaps even a mandate, to clarify, amend and redraft tourism legislation, at least as concerns private owners. One area we will be concerned with is tightening up and specifying the means and methods by which inspections may be made, not least because Turismo is now determined to go all out to carry out inspections that will be legally valid, and particularly to revisit those where first fines were imposed and rejected by the courts – they know that when they impose a further fine, it will be at the higher level of around €30,000 for a second offence. We also envisage seeking the legal right for private owners – of touristic properties and independent villas – to draw up private touristic contracts on their own behalf. We are not contemplating the abolition of the sole agent system, but rather allowing private owners to operate independently alongside them if they so wish.
This is the briefest of outlines of the way we’re thinking and we have commissioned an Alotca website, which we see as a bilingual and interactive resource to flesh this programme out much more fully. We see the website, though, as not just a static hub for information and updates, but also for members themselves to register and participate in the process we will be undertaking and heading. We are prepared to take this fight on, and take it to the government, and envisage carrying out this work ourselves: if necessary, we will redraft the whole law, something that is constitutionally permissible, and well within the capabilities of the two lawyers, with support from Maria, Paul and myself. This work, however, and the fight in general – and it will be a fight – will cost time and expense.
We don’t want to undertake it if people don’t have the stomach for it. I don’t think a single one of the five of us has personal interests in the matter, but if there is a widespread need, we will take it forward. Having said that, although we do not see Alotca as a personal profit-making enterprise, we think that it is not unfair that the time and expense that will inevitably be involved should be covered, and were considering something in the region of €50 a year. So, we would be grateful if readers could let us know whether they would like, and support, these proposals.
Even as I was typing the above, I received an email (now one of many) from someone who had been facing a nightmare and who can now “sleep well tonight”. We have achieved a solid and resounding victory for many ordinary people who had trustingly invested in these islands, but we want to do more, and try to ensure that they will now be able to enjoy their properties, in the majority of cases, as they originally envisaged. Please let us know whether you’re with us in this fight
Source: Unknown
Fivepence
07-11-2013, 20:15
Posted by Admin 31-08-2011, 10:48
Additional T&C's regarding posting of copied material and content from 3rd party websites.
If you are copying and pasting information within a post from another source, please quote the source - either by copying and pasting the URL of the page the information is taken from, or by clearly stating the sourc of the information.
In order for the forum to protect itself against prosecution, any information not quoting the source will be moderated and may be edited or deleted.
For example, if I wanted to qualify a point I was posting something about, say, the treatment of Jaundice in infants I would do the following :
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jaundice in infants is treated nowadays by phototherapy
Since the early 1970s, jaundice has been treated with phototherapy, a process in which infants are exposed to fluorescent-type lights which break down excess bilirubin so it can be excreted through the baby's liver.
Source : http://www.babycentre.co.uk/refcap/89.html#3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I made the point, quoted the text and linked to the source.
To make some sort of reference to the source of your information covers the forum under EU Copyright Laws and as also polite to the person who published the original material in the first place.
EU Copyright Law (Which covers both Spain and the UK) actually states that before any copyrighted material is reproduced, you must first seek the approval of the author... however it is widely accepted on the internet that this is not always possible, so a link to the source will surfice, or at least a reference to the source, such as : this information was taken from the Babycentre.co.uk website. It's often quicker and more specific to just copy and paste the URL though, than to type out the website address manually.
If you would like to read the EU Copyright directive, you can see it HERE
If you would like it explained in more layman's terms, you can get an overview of the Spanish laws (in English) HERE - however you can also click through to other countries on the site too.
Please be aware that the Tenerife Forum makes no warranty or representation in relation to any document that appears on this website.
The contents of these pages are provided as an information guide only. They are intended to enhance public access to information about Tenerife and many other matters.
While every effort is made in ensuring that material is accurate, Tenerife Forum accepts no liability for inaccuracies or errors on these pages and specifically to any third party websites who's links may be mentioned.
delderek
07-11-2013, 20:28
I consider myself harshly reprimanded
OK try this:
More cases have now been heard, and the same verdict is being given for them all: these are, of course, just those where the evidence for the fine was based on internet inspection alone. The verdict is being given even where the ostensible reason for the fine is the lack of a complaints book and notice. I say “same verdict” rather than “same judgment” because the tone of the judgments has changed. They are now considerably stronger in our favour, and more critical of both the government, and the tourism law itself.
All the judgments so far have come from courts 2 and 4. We have cases in courts 1 and 3 also, and expect the first judgments from them before the end of this year, probably next month. Court 3, as I’ve said before, is the most pro-government of the four, and the only one of them all to insist that the fine money was lodged with the government itself, rather than the Courts. This means that when we get verdicts from court 3, it may take considerably longer to get the money back. Refunds from courts 1, 2 and 4 should be very rapid, and the first formal applications for refunds will be made next week. As I’ve also said before, we are confident of the verdicts now, and should by any chance a different ruling be given, this can be appealed as a “contradictory verdict”.
As I’ve said before as well, because the fines were less than €30,000, the courts had the power to prevent any further appeals, and they have done this. Because Turismo rejected the courts’ suggestion of a class action, however, we still have many more cases to steer individually through all four courts, and even with several a day being heard, it will be May 2014 before we expect to get judgments on them all. This should give a fair idea of quite how many fines were issued – illegally, as we now have it from both courts and Presidencia-Consejo Consultivo.
I had a meeting this morning with José Escobedo and Santiago Saenz in view of the above, and we agreed that since we now have multiple “sentencias firme” (final judgments), it is a good time to look to the future. Alotca was never formed simply to defend fines, but to be a lobbying association on behalf of owners affected by the legislation. Although I am president of Alotca for this year, it is an association with five founder members, and so I hope the following will be taken as reflections of this morning’s meeting and thinking aloud in writing, rather than as firm statements to which I, or we, will be held if future events are slightly different.
We think that the judges’ comments in the more recent appeal rulings are very strong, and that there is now a clear case, and perhaps even a mandate, to clarify, amend and redraft tourism legislation, at least as concerns private owners. One area we will be concerned with is tightening up and specifying the means and methods by which inspections may be made, not least because Turismo is now determined to go all out to carry out inspections that will be legally valid, and particularly to revisit those where first fines were imposed and rejected by the courts – they know that when they impose a further fine, it will be at the higher level of around €30,000 for a second offence. We also envisage seeking the legal right for private owners – of touristic properties and independent villas – to draw up private touristic contracts on their own behalf. We are not contemplating the abolition of the sole agent system, but rather allowing private owners to operate independently alongside them if they so wish.
This is the briefest of outlines of the way we’re thinking and we have commissioned an Alotca website, which we see as a bilingual and interactive resource to flesh this programme out much more fully. We see the website, though, as not just a static hub for information and updates, but also for members themselves to register and participate in the process we will be undertaking and heading. We are prepared to take this fight on, and take it to the government, and envisage carrying out this work ourselves: if necessary, we will redraft the whole law, something that is constitutionally permissible, and well within the capabilities of the two lawyers, with support from Maria, Paul and myself. This work, however, and the fight in general – and it will be a fight – will cost time and expense.
We don’t want to undertake it if people don’t have the stomach for it. I don’t think a single one of the five of us has personal interests in the matter, but if there is a widespread need, we will take it forward. Having said that, although we do not see Alotca as a personal profit-making enterprise, we think that it is not unfair that the time and expense that will inevitably be involved should be covered, and were considering something in the region of €50 a year. So, we would be grateful if readers could let us know whether they would like, and support, these proposals.
Even as I was typing the above, I received an email (now one of many) from someone who had been facing a nightmare and who can now “sleep well tonight”. We have achieved a solid and resounding victory for many ordinary people who had trustingly invested in these islands, but we want to do more, and try to ensure that they will now be able to enjoy their properties, in the majority of cases, as they originally envisaged. Please let us know whether you’re with us in this fight
Source: Unknown Source: Janet Ans-combe's blog (current President of ALOCTA)
In fairness to all the dedication by & flow of information from Janet on this matter, I believe we really do need to acknowledge her, regardless of Forum politics from many years ago. She has acted as an invaluable link to the lawyers, Jose Escobedo in particular, keeping us well informed of legal matters
And, of course, there is the matter of copyright too :)
I would hope that anyone who has moaned on here about the unfairness of current legislation regarding holiday lettings would now sign up as a member of ALOCTA.
delderek
07-11-2013, 20:50
Firing squad at dawn Doreen.
May I remind members that it is against Forum T&Cs to discuss banned members on openForum.
As long as certain members continually flaunt the rules by attempting to place links and references, their posts will be removed.
the ghost of christmas future...
5153
This stupid business of the forum admins trying to pretend that Janet didnt exist needs to stop
slodgedad
07-11-2013, 22:03
This stupid business of the forum admins trying to pretend that Janet didnt exist needs to stop
She is a banned member. So do we allow all banned members back just because they have become valuable?
She is a banned member. So do we allow all banned members back just because they have become valuable?
That lady has always been valuable. Where are these T&C's located Slodge?
May I remind members that it is against Forum T&Cs to discuss banned members on openForum.
As long as certain members continually flaunt the rules by attempting to place links and references, their posts will be removed.
This 'person' is the independent authority on this subject, in Tenerife. This topic is over 8500 posts . You, sir, and this forum, if you are enforcing the T & C on its behalf,to this extent, are stupid. I suggest that you bury the hatchet with someone and something that happened many years ago and most current members know nothing about and in many respects is irrelevant. This person has no interest in this, or any other forum, but presents herself and her blog with information that is extensive and useful to anyone that is interested in this topic. You and this forum present yourselves as silly playground children.......so for that reason I am OUT and if you continue with this ridculous 'policing' there will probably be others of the same mind. I do not expect this post to last very long.
delderek
07-11-2013, 22:28
The lady in question would not want to be a member here. But to keep removing information taken from her blog after all these years is nonsense, petty and childish.
slodgedad
07-11-2013, 22:47
There is a concerted effort to have all her stuff allowed. I, for one, totally object.
There have been many members banned over the years, OVER 25.OOO, since the .org forum was started (spammers included) and I stand by my mandate. Banned members are not allowed to be discussed.
This thread is now temporaarily closed
I will not post again on this forum so long as J.a.n.e.t. is banned and it is not allowed to even talk about her.
Anyone standing by this ridiculous and petty decision is a total moron, you cannot lump JA in the same category as spammers - that is ridiculous.
This forum is meant to be a "tenerife forum"... yet it sensores the best source of news in English the island has ever had. It sensores the name of a woman who has tirelessly fought the corner of Expat property owners - what a total SHAME that this forum cannot see past their nose.
Good bye!
lovingtenerife
08-11-2013, 15:38
Many people are declaring rental income form short term letting as a long term that "suddently" has been finished... I have not heard of anyone (at least in the North) to have had an inspection yet.
Hope the canarian government changes this silly law soon...
The lady in question would not want to be a member here. But to keep removing information taken from her blog after all these years is nonsense, petty and childish.
That is actually correct, she has no wish to return as a member on this forum but she has no objection at all to anything she posts on her web site which anyone feels would be useful information for members of this forum being copied and posted on the forum.
That in my eyes makes her seem far more sensible than some of the people on this forum.
delderek
08-11-2013, 16:04
I will not post again on this forum so long as J.a.n.e.t. is banned and it is not allowed to even talk about her.
Anyone standing by this ridiculous and petty decision is a total moron, you cannot lump JA in the same category as spammers - that is ridiculous.
This forum is meant to be a "tenerife forum"... yet it sensores the best source of news in English the island has ever had. It sensores the name of a woman who has tirelessly fought the corner of Expat property owners - what a total SHAME that this forum cannot see past their nose.
Good bye!
Agreed 100%. and I think would most members. How the admin can be so out of touch is worrying. I am not going to leave the forum yet, in the hope that someone in authority begins to see sense.
The T&Cs that keep being spouted can surely not state that "We will remove information copied from other sites and/or remove the authors name" If they do, then it is censorship at it's darkest.
Angusjim
08-11-2013, 16:44
Something wrong here a thread going off topic and MM has not posted :eek:
Malteser Monkey
08-11-2013, 16:54
Something wrong here a thread going off topic and MM has not posted :eek:
Don't drag me into this - there has to be some MM free zones !:laugh:
Don't drag me into this - there has to be some MM free zones !:laugh:
I think that's called Utopia ....... :laugh:
Where's Admins name calling post gone, you know the defamation of character one ?
Altamira
09-11-2013, 13:02
Hello All
Historical Banning ? & Reassessment I am not aware of the history of the banning policy, so it is difficult for me to criticize the decision making process. However it is obvious that there is a need for both the JA & TF sites, the JA site provides an excellent source of information and keeping a tight reign on comments, on the other hand the TF site normally allows greater freedom on comments. It seems that there is a cross section of regular TF users that do not agree with the TF banning policy. I therefore think the TF management should reassess its policy in relation to the JA banning issue and this should be handled with some degree of urgency.
Peterrayner
09-11-2013, 17:14
Where's Admins name calling post gone, you know the defamation of character one ?
Admin aren't here ??? You said so yourself............. :wink:
Admin aren't here ??? You said so yourself............. :wink:
Peter strikes with a super lame one again.
delderek
09-11-2013, 19:45
Hello All
Historical Banning ? & Reassessment I am not aware of the history of the banning policy, so it is difficult for me to criticize the decision making process. However it is obvious that there is a need for both the JA & TF sites, the JA site provides an excellent source of information and keeping a tight reign on comments, on the other hand the TF site normally allows greater freedom on comments. It seems that there is a cross section of regular TF users that do not agree with the TF banning policy. I therefore think the TF management should reassess its policy in relation to the JA banning issue and this should be handled with some degree of urgency.
To be fair, TF forum were within their rights for the original ban. And as stated the lady in question would not come back even if asked.
The crazy unfair and petty censoring of any info published by this lady, and/or any mention of her name, is now what is upsetting clear thinking members.
I have to say, it's strange when you consider the horrendous amount of bullying that went on in this very thread and was totally ignored by any Mod/Admin, yet the minute one person's name gets mentioned the post is deleted and some dubious rule book is thrown at the offender......???
I have to say, it's strange when you consider the horrendous amount of bullying that went on in this very thread and was totally ignored by any Mod/Admin, yet the minute one person's name gets mentioned the post is deleted and some dubious rule book is thrown at the offender......???
I am surprised this thread seems to have temporarily finished considering all the numerous comments over the past couple of years and what has happened recently with the fines etc. ????
WARNING.
Please do not read page 6 in todays Daily Mail. The 2 forbidden words appear therin.
YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED
The headlines / tone of the Daily Mail article would not be out of place in the Daily Star / Sun. Lots of coulds. maybes etc
Please do not read page 6 in todays Daily Mail. Good advice as you will not learn anything factual that you don't already know.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2523474/Brits-holiday-homes-Spain-France-banned-renting-tourists.html
One of the shortist suicide notes Ive seen.
Where would you like the wake ?
I am hearing the Swan in Los Cris is good as long as you dont upset the customers.
Only good can come from this proposal of new French /Spanish laws regulating holiday home renting.this article is looking at the renting industry in mainland Spain and France. The situation is simply to regulate the holiday lets that have expanded so greatly with the Internet ad sites over the past decade. It's only sensible for local authorities to charge an annual fee to licence the letting, as we know that already happens in Portugal. The promotion reasonable standards of health and safety etc is nothing to be feared by Holliday home renters.
What is clearly going to emerge from this is a Europe wide regulation that allows holiday home renting to thrive within a sensible legal framework. This legal evolution is not going to seek to stop holiday home renting and give hotels an anti competitive edge, but simply to get the holiday home rentals industry on a sensible legal basis for the future.
The absurd canary take on restricting letting to monopoly sole agents and all the 1995 nonsense will play no part in any of the new laws mentioned in the article.
essexeddie
18-12-2013, 20:00
Suicide I think. Why do they keep interfering.
the hotels industry tends to imagine that holiday home renting is a low cost unfair competition to their business. The growth of the holiday home internet ad sites has scared them to death, the numbers of these properties being shown openly on the sites showing these past few years just how many of these private tourist beds actually exist. This was the viewpoint in portugal also, but as we know the portugese govt took the realistic option and legalised the holiday home renters by charging them an annual permit fee and enforcing reasonable standards on the properties.
It is not the business of any govt to meddle in market forces and try to favour one commercial interest against another. There has to be freedom for the customer to chose to holiday in a hotel if they want to, or if they want to holiday in a privately owned apartment then the same freedom of choice should apply.
The hotels get it wrong to presume that all apartment renting customers are in them because they are cut price to hotels. A two week stay in an apartment is not a cheap option if you eat out fully and with flight costs in. Long stay customers may have less eating out but of course they are not going to want to pay hotel rates for a 4 to 8 week long stay. having said that people who prefer a hotel will never consider an apartment. I would say without doubt our customers over the past ten years have not been yearning to get back in hotels. At the same time I am sure that there are many thousands of happy well heeled customers who have stayed loyally in hotels in tenerife these past 10 years and have no desire whatsoever to come and stay in our place or any other private apartment.
Thankfully the future is going to be one of legal acceptance of holiday home renting throughout europe. The hotels industry is just going to have to accept that and move forward looking after their customers without worrying about other alternative holiday accomodations.
The customer will have free choice where they decide to stay , thats how it should be.
The customer will have free choice where they decide to stay , thats how it should be.
Isn't that how it is now, the customer has free choice of any legal accommodation ?
In the canaries legal as in the 1995 letting laws involves a wholly artificial scenario whereby all letting on a complex had to be done collectively through a monopoly sole agent. The holiday home owners can't just let to the customer in effect the owner can only offer his property to this agent to let out. So the customer has no free choice to be able to rent a holiday home at all, the only option is the odd collective offering of this monopoly agent character. This oddball situation does not exist anywhere else in the world, clearly it makes no sense at all.
When legal means that a customer is free to either stay in a hotel or chose an apartment to stay without it being part of an artificial and unnecessary collective, then at that time the customer will have a free choice.
Thankfully we are watching the situation move towards that normality at the moment
that makes no difference to the tourist they just want a bed, Lets not promo illegal activities
cheers
Just seen following http://www.propertyinvesting.net/cgi-script/csNews/csNews.cgi?database=default%2edb&command=viewone&id=29785&op=t
An interesting link, the focus on it seems to be banning private renting in Paris and Berlin at the request of the hotels industry there. It is nice to see a holiday letting advert company commenting against these proposals, they have remained totally silent throughout the canary letting crackdown.
However whatever the rights and wrongs of trying to ban private renting in Paris and Berlin these proposals have little to do with the problems in the canaries. In the canaries letting on touristic complex is not a problem, it's the requirement to only use the sole agent that makes a normal situation a hassle , in principle there is no objection to tourist letting. What is needed in the canaries is legal letting on so called residential sites, those in the resorts. However legal permission to let for 30 days might be fine in any case, that would enable a strong swallow market and hopefully well behaved long stay customers who would not annoy the actual residents
What is needed in the canaries is legal letting on so called residential sites
But you're a pain in the ass on the forum hardly want you able to rent next door
ffs
x
karinagal
23-12-2013, 13:05
I am totally opposed to touristic letting being legalised in residential complexes. I sincerely hope that it NEVER comes to pass....
An interesting link, the focus on it seems to be banning private renting in Paris and Berlin at the request of the hotels industry there. It is nice to see a holiday letting advert company commenting against these proposals, they have remained totally silent throughout the canary letting crackdown.
However whatever the rights and wrongs of trying to ban private renting in Paris and Berlin these proposals have little to do with the problems in the canaries. In the canaries letting on touristic complex is not a problem, it's the requirement to only use the sole agent that makes a normal situation a hassle , in principle there is no objection to tourist letting. What is needed in the canaries is legal letting on so called residential sites, those in the resorts. However legal permission to let for 30 days might be fine in any case, that would enable a strong swallow market and hopefully well behaved long stay customers who would not annoy the actual residents
The Holiday Letting Advert Companies might have ignored it when it was just the Canaries and a couple of smaller places; when it's the whole of Spain and areas of Germany and France they're talking about that's a different matter altogether. They see diminishing revenue streams and that's what's got them commenting now.
I am totally opposed to touristic letting being legalised in residential complexes. I sincerely hope that it NEVER comes to pass....
I totally agree touristic letting is the last thing anybody wants, who live over here on residential complexes. It is about time the government started clamping down on illegal letting big time and increase their revenue stream.
There are residential complexes and touristic complexes, I have never heard of 'so called' residential complexes!
Angusjim
23-12-2013, 15:18
I totally agree touristic letting is the last thing anybody wants, who live over here on residential complexes. It is about time the government started clamping down on illegal letting big time and increase their revenue stream.
Well that's not strictly correct on the complex I used own on it worked very well they had full time residents, long term letting & holidays lets and it worked really well with very little or no problems, so you do not speak for all who live on residential complexes its just your opinion which you are quite entitled to have. One thing I always find strange is I cannot remember any threads or posts on here about this being a major problem prior to the clamp down on so called illegal letting.
theslaters
23-12-2013, 15:53
As a holiday maker couple of times a year in Tenerife I want to know exactly what apartment I'm getting not just a bed in a room if I can't choose I won't book I'm not risking my hard earned taking the gamble on ending up in a crap apartment facing a wall no chance I will just go somewhere I can choose ,we all know that there are good rooms/ apartments on a complex and crap ones
essexeddie
23-12-2013, 16:08
If I was a tourist I wouldn't want to be on a residential complex, they are usually dead with no bar, full of noisy Spanish kids and howling dogs, and normally their pools are unheated. Unless that is what you want.
Tourists should be on tourist site only, long or short term. That's where they are best suited.
Red Devil
23-12-2013, 17:50
If I was a tourist I wouldn't want to be on a residential complex, they are usually dead with no bar, full of noisy Spanish kids and howling dogs, and normally their pools are unheated. Unless that is what you want.
Tourists should be on tourist site only, long or short term. That's where they are best suited.
These "tourists" must be a different species and need to know their place in the hierarchy of things in Tenerife as many people on here seem to know what's best for them.:laugh:
that makes no difference to the tourist they just want a bed, Lets not promo illegal activities
cheers
Yeah, you're not wrong there 9plus
As long as I get a bed I am happy - running water and a toilet would be nice but hey, what can I expect for my £400???
Yeah, you're not wrong there 9plus
As long as I get a bed I am happy - running water and a toilet would be nice but hey, what can I expect for my £400???
ffs come over ere want want want
x
It would be OK if they actually gave permits out but from what I heard you have zero chance of getting getting a licence to let and that applies also for people who have freestanding villas that are less likely to annoy other residents.
My main business in other parts of Europe is short lets, regulation is what is needed not blanket bans. The hotel lobby hates competition and the tax man hates people not paying up so regulation is the way to go but licences need to be obtainable once criteria is met.
For example in Berlin they have made a law that there must be another fire exit as a way to stop people letting. Any residential building has usually one way in and one way out, so what is the difference if there are a few short lets in the building? Just nonsense dreamed up by the hotel lobby to keep competition out.
Can't see how long term swallows are a problem or a nuisance on any complex? On ours they befriend residents and both sides look forward to their reunions each year. Ok admitted boisterous and rowdy behaviour may be a problem with more short stay visitors.
But the recent article seeks to restrict tourist letting in Paris and Berlin but it accepts that 30 day plus stays have to be permitted in residential properties. If that comes in as euro law that's going to be good news for many renters in residentials in the canaries, they will get a decent legal rental in long stays.
That's going to be a good step forward for them.
If people know of problems with long stay swallows then please tell me, but I think they are overwhelmingly well behaved wonderful guests, who cause zero issues on residential sites.
duncan-6
25-12-2013, 20:14
"On ours they befriend... RESIDENTS...and both sides look forward to their reunions each year"....
How can they befriend residents, when, according to a previous post of yours, you were touristic.
:3-4-2013 post 6714
Red Devil
25-12-2013, 20:58
But you can be a resident on a touristic site.
Yes we are touristic , we have around 10 per cent actual residents . Remember the new daft canary tourist law was going to remove residents from touristic sites, with huge fines if they did not leave and make way for tourists.
As red devil has said , as things stood you were free to live residentially in a touristic complex, in addition you could tourist let if you wanted to.
And as I have been saying long term tourists in the 4 week plus sector are never a nuisance in terms of behaviour , noise or bawdiness and should not be a problem on full residential sites when the new euro laws make these lets legal in residential properties.
jogger321
25-12-2013, 22:38
Yes we are touristic , we have around 10 per cent actual residents . Remember the new daft canary tourist law was going to remove residents from touristic sites, with huge fines if they did not leave and make way for tourists.
As red devil has said , as things stood you were free to live residentially in a touristic complex, in addition you could tourist let if you wanted to.
And as I have been saying long term tourists in the 4 week plus sector are never a nuisance in terms of behaviour , noise or bawdiness and should not be a problem on full residential sites when the new euro laws make these lets legal in residential properties.
How can Sur Y Sol be touristic Nelson when it doesn't have a touristic licence anymore ? ... Estate agent admitted this to me last week
In planning terms if a complex was originally legally touristic when first built then it remains touristic ever after. If such a complex at any time has no sole agent the complex can get one back, it just needs the necessary 50 plus one to bring that about. Of course subject to bolkestein and the current canary letting laws being illegal a touristic site would not require a sole agent and touristic letting in such a site would be legal. A complex built originally as residential can not tourist let.
In simply terms a complex built originally with touristic status does not loose it's touristic status if it ceases to have a current licence holder, it has the ability to get that back at any time.
In planning terms if a complex was originally legally touristic when first built then it remains touristic ever after. If such a complex at any time has no sole agent the complex can get one back, it just needs the necessary 50 plus one to bring that about. Of course subject to bolkestein and the current canary letting laws being illegal a touristic site would not require a sole agent and touristic letting in such a site would be legal. A complex built originally as residential can not tourist let.
In simply terms a complex built originally with touristic status does not loose it's touristic status if it ceases to have a current licence holder, it has the ability to get that back at any time.
In planning terms if a PLOT was originally legally touristic when first designated then it remains touristic ever after.
Thats better
duncan-6
26-12-2013, 09:02
Sur y Sol is DORMANT touristic, it has no lifeguard at the pool, no sole agent, all monies change hands in UK, or on arrival,(cash).
The vast majority of owners would have all their teeth pulled without anesthetic, rather than go legal (sole agent).
I personally think it's a great complex, many owners have spent a lot of dosh on their apartments, but dont mention the word AGENT.
Angusjim
26-12-2013, 09:21
It official Nelson is good for the Forum he gets members posting again:lol::respect::c2:
- - - - - - - - - - merged double post - - - - - - - - - -
In planning terms if a PLOT was originally legally touristic when first designated then it remains touristic ever after.
Thats better
So why did the Canarian government allow Thompsons etc to sell off Tourist complexes to people allowing them to convert them to residential complexes. They had no issues accepting all the taxes etc on these deals, they have created this situation themselves and now want others to foot the bill for their shortcomings shame on them, perhaps its time to take a long term view on what the tourist actually wants now and in the future not what they are trying force on to their customers.
Sur y Sol is DORMANT touristic, it has no lifeguard at the pool, no sole agent, all monies change hands in UK, or on arrival,(cash).
The vast majority of owners would have all their teeth pulled without anesthetic, rather than go legal (sole agent).
I personally think it's a great complex, many owners have spent a lot of dosh on their apartments, but dont mention the word AGENT.
No not dormant, it's licence and agent runs it under the licence of 2 other nearby complex . The current agent has not de registered the place, that could lead to problems with the agents vital 50 plus 1. I suppose you could correctly say the current agent is dormant not the actual complex.
It's still on aronas website of legal accommodation
It official Nelson is good for the Forum he gets members posting again:lol::respect::c2:
- - - - - - - - - - merged double post - - - - - - - - - -
So why did the Canarian government allow Thompsons etc to sell off Tourist complexes to people allowing them to convert them to residential complexes. They had no issues accepting all the taxes etc on these deals, they have created this situation themselves and now want others to foot the bill for their shortcomings shame on them, perhaps its time to take a long term view on what the tourist actually wants now and in the future not what they are trying force on to their customers.
I'm not getting what you are trying to prove but
A Tourist complex of 300 apartments
One apartment is not registered leaving 299 legal tourist apartments
that 1 apartment is for residential use only, it's a residential apartment nothing to do with the plot being touristic
2 completely separate issues
Residential complexes on touristic plots are perfectly legal why would they not be ?
They accepted the taxes, perfectly legal
Duncan there's no such thing as DORMANT touristic
duncan-6
26-12-2013, 11:28
If there is no lifeguard or sole agent on site, what is it then?
If there is no lifeguard or sole agent on site, what is it then?
It makes no difference whether a complex has a lifeguard or sole agent
If there is no valid tourist license on a complex it would be a residential use only complex.
surely that answers your question ?
duncan-6
26-12-2013, 12:19
It makes no difference whether a complex has a lifeguard or sole agent
If there is no valid tourist license on a complex it would be a residential use only complex.
surely that answers your question ?
Yes it does answer my question,... so if there is no such thing as "dormant touristic", you can only be one or the other,...legally touristic or residential, correct? and if you are legal, there wont be any fines.
There wont be any fines if you comply with the Law correct
But the current daft canary law is not going to be around for much longer, the winds of change are blowing. Euro law proposals are agreed that any residential property can let for 30 day plus stays, ideal for canary swallow long stay customers in all the residential complex,s.
It's going to be a happy new year for canary residential letting ,
- - - - - - - - - - merged double post - - - - - - - - - -
Yes agreed , and perhaps the member you are referring to will soon drop his cover and post under his real membership name, but for now his more aggressive cover membership will have to do
Regardless of what you may think i can't remember seeing any draft along those lines.
what are you on about now "perhaps the member you are referring to will soon drop his cover and post under his real membership name, but for now his more aggressive cover membership will have to do" ?
Angusjim
26-12-2013, 13:39
I'm not getting what you are trying to prove but
A Tourist complex of 300 apartments
One apartment is not registered leaving 299 legal tourist apartments
that 1 apartment is for residential use only, it's a residential apartment nothing to do with the plot being touristic
2 completely separate issues
Residential complexes on touristic plots are perfectly legal why would they not be ?
They accepted the taxes, perfectly legal
Duncan there's no such thing as DORMANT touristic
What I am saying is if they always wanted to keep tourist complexes for tourists & residential complexes for residential use why allow for example Ocean Park 1 & 2 and Orlando to go residential in the middle of what was / is an established tourist only area, they allowed the whole situation to come about and accepted what what was going on with letting because it was easy money for them to collect in taxes.
What, who is saying that ?
I wasn't aware there were any complexes that were tourist only areas in Tenerife
Illegal lettings thread Christmas quiz 2013. Which former very active forum member who left the forum a few weeks ago has just returned to posting, albeit by a secret membership rather than his own. Angusjim not eligible for the quiz as he knows the answer , see his post earlier today about me getting members back posting.
It's quite obvious, not really hard detective work. I always had suspicions about a certain members posts, I did think ages ago it was perhaps a cover membership . The original member using the cover membership to make very personal and aggressive remarks on , stuff he perhaps wanted to say but felt unable to do so in his real membership.
I do hope you aren't insinuating i'm 6PLUS, I'm 9PLUS ask any lady on this forum
cheers
x
But the current daft canary law is not going to be around for much longer, the winds of change are blowing. Euro law proposals are agreed that any residential property can let for 30 day plus stays, ideal for canary swallow long stay customers in all the residential complex,s.
It's going to be a happy new year for canary residential letting ,
- - - - - - - - - - merged double post - - - - - - - - - -
Yes agreed , and perhaps the member you are referring to will soon drop his cover and post under his real membership name, but for now his more aggressive cover membership will have to do
It's quite obvious, not really hard detective work. I always had suspicions about a certain members posts, I did think ages ago it was perhaps a cover membership . The original member using the cover membership to make very personal and aggressive remarks on , stuff he perhaps wanted to say but felt unable to do so in his real membership.
nelson ... again you seem to be posting along the line - if I say it is true, it will be. There are no Euro law proposals for 30 day stays in residential properties, rather several individual cities (Berlin, Paris, Lyon) proposing these measures in an effort to stop short term letting.
And as to a new identity, if you are thinking of Loaded, then think again: I have already posted that he has confirmed to me he is still OUT .... I think the expulsion and multi returns of Juba was before your time? :)
duncan-6
26-12-2013, 17:52
There wont be any fines if you comply with the Law correct
OK, fair enough, now correct me if i'm wrong, and I would welcome DOREEN'S opinion on this,...Sur Y Sol was once owned, and then sold off to individual owners by thomson's, therefore it must ORIGINALLY have held a touristic licence, so we can take it that lt has never, past/present/or future held a resedential licence.
Earlier this year, mrs duncan and I were extremely close to buying our own apartment on the above complex, everything was sorted, nie's, f/ex etc. and the person who was going to do the conveyancing etc (very well known, well respected) said this complex is what is colloquially known as..dormant touristic, I today have been told..there is no such thing, there are quite a few owners who have had big fines,..for breaking the licence laws.
I know for example, that next door..las roses is resedential, paloma beach is touristic, so what is Sur Y Sol.
cheers.
It's all good Christmas fun is this.
A great man once said you can fool some of the people all of the time and you can fool all the people some of the time, but you can't fool all the people all the time.
Folks make up your own minds , has a rare and quite odd poster suddenly returned, complete with an obscure and very many months ago quote from a post of mine, or is someone else desperate to return but not here up front?
OK, fair enough, now correct me if i'm wrong, and I would welcome DOREEN'S opinion on this,...Sur Y Sol was once owned, and then sold off to individual owners by thomson's, therefore it must ORIGINALLY have held a touristic licence, so we can take it that lt has never, past/present/or future held a resedential licence.
Earlier this year, mrs duncan and I were extremely close to buying our own apartment on the above complex, everything was sorted, nie's, f/ex etc. and the person who was going to do the conveyancing etc (very well known, well respected) said this complex is what is colloquially known as..dormant touristic, I today have been told..there is no such thing, there are quite a few owners who have had big fines,..for breaking the licence laws.
I know for example, that next door..las roses is resedential, paloma beach is touristic, so what is Sur Y Sol.
cheers.
A residential licence thats a new one on me.
Everywhere is residential if it hasn't got a tourist licence.
If an owner has been fined they have done because
A, They didn't go via a complexes sole agent
B, They rent to tourists without a complex tourist licence
- - - - - - - - - - merged double post - - - - - - - - - -
Update 26 December: We now know that tourist numbers are up despite impressions of “it never being so quiet”. Now, another myth that “they” are all staying in all-inclusive accommodation and not going outside to spend is itself shattered with official figures showing not only that tourist spending is up, but that spending by tourists who are staying in hotels has risen the most.
Statistics from November show that foreign tourist spending here grew 10.1% throughout 2013 compared with 2012, giving a total spend of €10.5m, a figure that itself represents nearly a fifth of all tourist spending in Spain, putting the Canaries in third place after Catalonia and the Balearics. The figures have been produced by survey carried out by the Spain’s Ministerio de Industria, Energía y Turismo. In November specifically, thanks no doubt to our climate attracting winter sun visitors, that percentage shot up 23% to €1,262,000, 37.7% of the total national tourist spend.
How then to account for the “it’s never been so quiet” stories one hears, something that is particularly confusing given that the biggest proportion of spending is still being made by British tourists, just over 20% of the total spent here by foreign visitors (followed by the Germans, then the French, then the Scandinavians – surprisingly not the Russians … yet). I fail to see any alternative but to accept that the upmarket push is working, and that the spending is exactly where the Canarian Government wants it to be, in golf, spas, niche markets, and the like. What analysis of the released figures makes clear, in any case, is that spending grew most among those staying in hotels, a rise of 16.9%, so they are indeed “getting out and spending” … just not in the “traditional” places.
I think it is perhaps time that these figures, which are now repeatedly being replicated, are accepted for what they are, and that the changing face of tourism in the Canaries is recognized as a move not just towards different visitors, but different requirements from the customary major British market. Those establishments which “have never been so quiet” might have their core market, but this will not be enough to survive unless they adapt and evolve to meet the new reality.
Source:- JA
It's all good Christmas fun is this.
A great man once said you can fool some of the people all of the time and you can fool all the people some of the time, but you can't fool all the people all the time.
Folks make up your own minds , has a rare and quite odd poster suddenly returned, complete with an obscure and very many months ago quote from a post of mine, or is someone else desperate to return but not here up front?
Hi Nelson, I'm still here, just in case you were to have any worries that old flames were cropping up with new handles.
I see you are still "unhappy" about all this, and still believing the law will change in your favour and that Brussels will come running to help you. From my perspective and my understanding and interest in what is happening with European Law, whilst you may feel 2014 will be your year and a victory is in sight, as Doreen says above, you will need to dream on a little (lot) longer.
Certainly with the Canarian Governments' policy continuing to come to fruition, Tourist numbers at record breaking levels, spending increasing quite dramatically, I see little chance of anything other than a continuing clampdown on those breaking the local laws, and even a tightening up of Fiscal residency rules - something which they are entitled to do and for which they have sanction so to do from the very EU itself.
Nelson said last winter would be bad, then it was the summer, then this winter.
Not really Nostradamus is she
But you're a pain in the ass on the forum hardly want you able to rent next door
ffs
x
Panic not,it will never come to pass! Legal holiday rentals on a residential complex ,not,never,no how!!!!!!
- - - - - - - - - - merged double post - - - - - - - - - -
But the current daft canary law is not going to be around for much longer, the winds of change are blowing. Euro law proposals are agreed that any residential property can let for 30 day plus stays, ideal for canary swallow long stay customers in all the residential complex,s.
It's going to be a happy new year for canary residential letting ,
- - - - - - - - - - merged double post - - - - - - - - - -
Yes agreed , and perhaps the member you are referring to will soon drop his cover and post under his real membership name, but for now his more aggressive cover membership will have to do
It would seem that many countries have realized that for many years they have been cheated out of a huge amount of tax revenue from illegal rentals.Hence the new proposals for either licenses for individual properties or licenses for complexes where an agent is responsible for both the condition of the properties and the tax paid on rentals.If you are suggesting that the hotels see illegal rentals as competition then you must accept that they have to fulfill safety ,staffing and hygiene regulations that your illegal properties don't fulfill.There has to be control and accountability for apartments rented to tourists as well as collection of taxes (paid in the country of the property).As we have said many times before,there are some beautiful rental properties both legal and illegal but there are also some disgusting,dirty and dangerous properties that must be controlled.There are also some owners who pay their taxes on profits made and owners who are tax evaders!
I have been in this business for 14 years and there are no rules from Brussels, all laws are made on a city level. You need to lobby locally as the EU are not interested in something of this nature, so I think Nelson is dreaming they are going to come and save him/her.
The best thing Nelson can do is give some cash for a fighting fund as we do in Barcelona and Madrid to try and straighten out the law to regulate the industry properly and fight for the interests of holiday rentals. This is the one we pay into in Barcelona http://www.apartur.com/.
junglejim
27-12-2013, 08:34
Nelson said last winter would be bad, then it was the summer, then this winter.
Not really Nostradamus is she
You really have a hard-on for Nelson !! Give her up and find a real woman !!
JPTenerife
27-12-2013, 09:02
You really have a hard-on for Nelson !! Give her up and find a real woman !!
A hard on is an impossibility for Sparky.:laugh:
Angusjim
27-12-2013, 09:21
What, who is saying that ?
I wasn't aware there were any complexes that were tourist only areas in Tenerife
So can you name the residential complexes in that area that were built specifically for that type of use as far as I can see everything in that area was built for tourists that's what I meant by tourist only as well you know Mark.
Port Royal is a residential plot so whether it was marketed for tourism or not is could never be and all the complexes at the back of Paloma Beach were never meant to be touristic
- - - - - - - - - - merged double post - - - - - - - - - -
You really have a hard-on for Nelson !! Give her up and find a real woman !!
Nothing she says it true, she just makes the whole lot up a bit like you really Jim when t u try to prove a point, it's clear you have very limited knowledge on the subject
Angusjim
27-12-2013, 12:34
Port Royal is a residential plot so whether it was marketed for tourism or not is could never be and all the complexes at the back of Paloma Beach were never meant to be touristic
- - - - - - - - - - merged double post - - - - - - - - - -
Nothing she says it true, she just makes the whole lot up a bit like you really Jim when t u try to prove a point, it's clear you have very limited knowledge on the subject
Thats not the area I mentioned I am asking you to name residential complexes in that area nothing to do with Los Cristianos
We all welcome news of increased tourists in the canaries , the islands economy and people need this. However reports that the current increases are down to the success of the govts new up market strategy are totally wrong. I have read reporting on the ja site saying these recent increases show that the govts strategy is working and muppet has also indicated this also.
The fact is the govt have not actually as yet done anything tangible to begin in reality their new up market strategy . All that has happened so far is that the govt have issued press releases indicating that they want to take tourism up market. This plan involves improving hotels , returning up to five stars. Get rid of the shabby 3 star places . But people , nothing has actually been done regarding this strategy at all at the moment, absolutely nothing whatsoever. Well sorry adeje council have banned washing lines on balconies , that's one actual step up market that I have heard of, but surely that alone has not brought about the increase in tourist numbers?
Is there a secret pact with uk travel agents not to book down market tourists to the canaries ? Are they in league with the canary govt and are only sending up market people nowadays?
I may call into my local travel agent and try to book into the bitacora, maybe I should act a bit rough and ready and see if they let me book?
So given that the govt have not actually started their up market policies it seems to me that the current increases in tourists are nothing to do with them, to my mind it's down to turmoil in North Africa / Egypt . Welcome as these increases are the govt have harmed their economy by attacking private letting. Their should have been an increase in hotel visitors and full self catering apartment visitors as well. That would be a policy for a booming economy and maximum jobs in the canaries.
But whats the point Jim?
Just because there are maybe 10 or so complexes in one area that are all touristic doesn't mean that is the tourist only area, planing is sustainable in Spain and has been for over 60 years, within any area that has a tourism sector where will always be residential, commercial, schooling and leisure areas.
And thats how the plan general de ordenanza works.
essexeddie
27-12-2013, 17:53
Is there a secret pact with uk travel agents not to book down market tourists to the canaries ? Are they in league with the canary govt and are only sending up market people nowadays?.
Ha ha ha hope these up market people are good at dodging the dog shyt that's every where :lol:
.
The fact is the govt have not actually as yet done anything tangible to begin in reality their new up market strategy . All that has happened so far is that the govt have issued press releases indicating that they want to take tourism up market. This plan involves improving hotels , returning up to five stars. Get rid of the shabby 3 star places . But people , nothing has actually been done regarding this strategy at all at the moment, absolutely nothing whatsoever. Well sorry adeje council have banned washing lines on balconies , that's one actual step up market that I have heard of, but surely that alone has not brought about the increase in tourist numbers?
So you know nothing about the millions the Canarian Government have spend on promoting the islands at the Tourism trade fairs around the World every year to name just one source?
Although I know that the tourist board will go its own way, we should maybe try to find a solution that is workable for (almost) everybody. My idea is the following:
Every 5 or 10 year the community of owner can take the decision to change from residential to touristic or from touristic to residential. This decision shall require a favourable vote of 75% of the proprietors that also represent 75% of the participation quota.
This way the real residential complexes will always stay residential. Some residential complexes, build for tourists, can change to touristic if indeed a big majority wants this. The 5 or 10 year period is necessary because of the investment necessary to change (especially) from residential to touristic.
The sole agent continues to be obligatory and will be elected for a period of 2 years and shall require a favourable vote of 50% of the proprietors that also represent 50% of the participation quota.
This way the power of the sole agents will be reduced significantly and can be removed much more easily.
Why not work the sole agent into that 5 or 10 year period. Having a business opportunity for 2 years wouldn't really be viable especially if that sole agent is investing into the business.
Plus business premisses contracts are normally for a 5 years period.
Why not work the sole agent into that 5 or 10 year period. Having a business opportunity for 2 years wouldn't really be viable especially if that sole agent is investing into the business.
Plus business premisses contracts are normally for a 5 years period.
I will think about it:wink2:
So you know nothing about the millions the Canarian Government have spend on promoting the islands at the Tourism trade fairs around the World every year to name just one source?
Promoting every year for many years gone by and spending millions to do it sounds like a good old Spanish gravy train to me. But I am not talking about trade fair promoting for years gone by, I am saying that the new recent govt up market strategy had definitly not brought about the current increase in tourists as the said new strategy has not in point of fact been actually started yet.
Ja is wrong to claim that the tourist numbers have increased thanks to the new up market strategy because the strategy has not in any real or practice sense actually shown any tangible changes/ actions at all.
I guessing that current system is possibly better anyhow as you don't have to wait 2,5 or 10 years to lapse
You can just get them out with 50% + 1 votes at anytime.
And if this is not possible then having a cut off period of 2,5 or 10 years wouldn't make a blind bit of difference.
- - - - - - - - - - merged double post - - - - - - - - - -
But but but the Government has been focused on up market since around 2004 not winter 2013
One fact is for sure you said that last years winter trade would be bad, i wasn't. then it was the summer and then the winter
Tenerife is growing as a World prime tourist destination without for mass illegal lets, which i bet gets up your nose no end.
I guessing that current system is possibly better anyhow as you don't have to wait 2,5 or 10 years to lapse
You can just get them out with 50% + 1 votes at anytime.
And if this is not possible then having a cut off period of 2,5 or 10 years wouldn't make a blind bit of difference.
- - - - - - - - - - merged double post - - - - - - - - - -
But but but the Government has been focused on up market since around 2004 not winter 2013
One fact is for sure you said that last years winter trade would be bad, i wasn't. then it was the summer and then the winter
Tenerife is growing as a World prime tourist destination without for mass illegal lets, which i bet gets up your nose no end.
A strong vibrant canary economy is not something that could possibly get up my nose, I am a property owner in the region remember, a strong economy will benefit me in robust value to my personal investment in the islands. The opposite if that would be to see the islands economy in decline and all sorts of social problems as a result .
It simply comes down to the point that if hotel visitor numbers are booming then if the apartment sector had not been attacked the economy would have benefited so much more. It would have been firing on all cylinders , better for the economy and for jobs.
May the clampdown continue
Red Devil
27-12-2013, 23:30
[QUOTE=9PLUS;344157]Port Royal is a residential plot so whether it was marketed for tourism or not is could never be and all the complexes at the back of Paloma Beach were never meant to be touristic
- - - - - - - - - - merged double post - - - - - - - - - -
This is what is so sad about the clampdown.
Port Royale worked very well with a mix of residential, holidaymakers and small amount of long lets.
Now it is almost like a ghost town some weeks. Who can possibly have gained from that?
Strange also that it was built in the 80's complete with a Reception. Why would that have been built if only residents were envisaged?
It was build for timeshare on a residential plot a marketing/planning scam the developer thought they could get the land clasification changed to Touristic then quickly realised it wasnt going to happen. Hence why Port Royal is residential.
All of Port Royal apartments were sold as residential.
The office is a community office not a touristic reception and always has been that way if tourists would have been envisaged then there would be a community office and a tourist reception. i know of 3 very small store room i know of no other office space on that site.
Angusjim
28-12-2013, 08:22
But whats the point Jim?
Just because there are maybe 10 or so complexes in one area that are all touristic doesn't mean that is the tourist only area, planing is sustainable in Spain and has been for over 60 years, within any area that has a tourism sector where will always be residential, commercial, schooling and leisure areas.
And thats how the plan general de ordenanza works.
The point is why did they allow touristic complexes to become residential in areas they had clearly designated for tourist use with the loss of all these beds, they played their part in allowing the situation with holiday letting to develop in residential complexes but then turn round and put all the blame on owners, why do they not do something positive by offering help / funds for complexes who want to revert back to Touristic they got millions in taxes with all the property sales time to put something back. Maybe an idea is to have licensed complexes that would allow swallow type visitors to stay for a minimum of say 1 month.
When Thompsons sold the apartments did they own all of them? Rendering the whole complex residential? If so the new owners purchased as residential and if they are renting to tourists that is not the Governments fault.
Or did they sell off the tourist licenced apartment and just remove them from the register ? Because if thats the case the new owners would register again job done.
If the owners on a complex decide between themselves to change classification of a complex from touristic to residential that is their choice and it perfectly legal. The Government can not have any say in this it is the community of owners choice.
Im sure there are plenty of legal places that would gladly take a swallow for a month, but are you referring to them not wanting to pay weekly/fortnightly prices?
Angusjim
28-12-2013, 08:40
Do you really see a more upmarket clientèle now coming to Tenerife ? do they come in by Easy Jet, Ryanair,Thomas Cook, Thomson flights with all us peasants ! don't think so. Tenerife is at best 4 star resort with 3/4 star facilities. When things settle down in the Middle East you will see lots of numbers disappear again, the Canaries have benefited big time from the problems over there a fact you omit to acknowledge. I know by speaking to lots of business contacts who would be in your " upmarket visitors" they give no consideration in coming to the Tenerife.
Yes i do see a more up market client coming to Tenerife but more in the Adeje area and since before the recession.
One of the great things about Tenerife is it caters for a wide range of people.
Angusjim
28-12-2013, 08:53
When Thompsons sold the apartments did they own all of them? Rendering the whole complex residential? If so the new owners purchased as residential and if they are renting to tourists that is not the Governments fault.
Or did they sell off the tourist licenced apartment and just remove them from the register ? Because if thats the case the new owners would register again job done.
If the owners on a complex decide between themselves to change classification of a complex from touristic to residential that is their choice and it perfectly legal. The Government can not have any say in this it is the community of owners choice.
Im sure there are plenty of legal places that would gladly take a swallow for a month, but are you referring to them not wanting to pay weekly/fortnightly prices?
But the government must have known what was going on, fact is they did nothing because it was easy money for them and would have done nothing if they had not had a financial meltdown. Why can there be no middle ground in say allowing swallows to rent apartments for longer periods for cheaper prices if there are owners out there that are happy to do this, seems you have already signed up to the 5 star dream. You have an electrical business which will be made up of many different types of work you do not limit yourself to only doing for instance lighting design & installation to large villas so why should Tenerife not have an industry that is made up of many parts not just the "upmarket" dream they are currently pinning their hopes on.
When things settle down in the Middle East you will see lots of numbers disappear again, the Canaries have benefited big time from the problems over there a fact you omit to acknowledge.
For it to be a fact you must be able to prove what you are saying. I doubt you have a crystal ball
Angusjim
28-12-2013, 09:02
Yes i do see a more up market client coming to Tenerife but more in the Adeje area and since before the recession.
One of the great things about Tenerife is it caters for a wide range of people.
Is it possible to fly to Tenerife 1st class or business class or do they join the priority boarding queue to start off their luxury holiday.
So why not have a wide range of options regarding accommodation for people to stay in, for example a lot of your so called " upmarket" holidaymakers that I know would want to rent top end villa is that an option in Tenerife.
But the government must have known what was going on, fact is they did nothing because it was easy money for them and would have done nothing if they had not had a financial meltdown. Why can there be no middle ground in say allowing swallows to rent apartments for longer periods for cheaper prices if there are owners out there that are happy to do this, seems you have already signed up to the 5 star dream. You have an electrical business which will be made up of many different types of work you do not limit yourself to only doing for instance lighting design & installation to large villas so why should Tenerife not have an industry that is made up of many parts not just the "upmarket" dream they are currently pinning their hopes on.
Tenerife isnt only upmarket they are just promoting this sector as its a change from what people think of Tenerife as do some of your business contracts.
The Government can not stop owners changing to residental so please cut out the conspiracy theory.
- - - - - - - - - - merged double post - - - - - - - - - -
So why not have a wide range of options regarding accommodation for people to stay in, for example a lot of your so called " upmarket" holidaymakers that I know would want to rent top end villa is that an option in Tenerife.
Of course there are a wide range of options, there are legal apartments on complexes, and of course your upmarket friends you know have the available to high end villas in Tenerife.
Angusjim
28-12-2013, 09:15
For it to be a fact you must be able to prove what you are saying. I doubt you have a crystal ball
Heres a fact I could name 20 people right now without thinking too much about it of people that usually go and will go back when it the time is right. Are you saying that the Canaries have not benefited from the Middle East problems go and ask the travel companies for the facts they will tell you different.
http://www.tenerifenews.org.es/2013/08/canaries-will-benefit-from-egypt-conflict/
I would of thought every tourist destination would have benefited in some way, we arent going to see a massive change.
Please dont forget to answer my replies to your questions.
- - - - - - - - - - merged double post - - - - - - - - - -
When Thompsons sold the apartments did they own all of them? Rendering the whole complex residential? If so the new owners purchased as residential and if they are renting to tourists that is not the Governments fault.
Or did they sell off the tourist licenced apartment and just remove them from the register ? Because if thats the case the new owners would register again job done.
If the owners on a complex decide between themselves to change classification of a complex from touristic to residential that is their choice and it perfectly legal. The Government can not have any say in this it is the community of owners choice.
Im sure there are plenty of legal places that would gladly take a swallow for a month, but are you referring to them not wanting to pay weekly/fortnightly prices?
There you go
Red Devil
28-12-2013, 09:21
It was build for timeshare on a residential plot a marketing/planning scam the developer thought they could get the land clasification changed to Touristic then quickly realised it wasnt going to happen. Hence why Port Royal is residential.
All of Port Royal apartments were sold as residential.
The office is a community office not a touristic reception and always has been that way if tourists would have been envisaged then there would be a community office and a tourist reception. i know of 3 very small store room i know of no other office space on that site.
I dont dispute any of that, except the owners office had a sign saying "reception" for many years and even now sell boat trips and excursions.
However non of that alters the gist of my original, that the complex is now very, very quiet, everyone was quite happy with the status quo as it was, residents included. Sad and pointless meddling now by the very people who knew exactly what was happening for years and years.
Most residential complexes are quite one of the reasons for this is because there are no rowdy ****** up tourists around.
Port Royal is a little different, most of the apartment owners don't live here. It doesn't make it right before, just because a lot of the owners are now not openly renting to tourists because of the clamp down on residential complexes.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.4 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.