August update

Following the Resortalia;s surprising email to which we had assumed that they were no longer involved in this process together with some owners subsequent feedback, we comment as follows:

We believe that a community of owners is clear by its name and all actions should be in the interests of all owners. Resortalia's role is we believe crystal clear in this regard and it would be unwise when a clear injustice as this has arisen relating to any of the communities owners, not to support the correct course of action. It is very clear to individual owners including ourselves that the proposed screen will not meet all owners requirements therefore it is a non-starter and always have been as we have previously stated.

Of course there will be some owners, including some owners in the two sub communities materially affected by the current set-up, that wish this to go ahead for their own personal benefit but not considering the implications or non-benefits of all owners.  (i.e. we cannot see it, therefore we are not bothered!). We find this also totally inexcusable and does really question the purpose and roles of sub communities within the resort. At the same time it is also very concerning that if the location of the current compound happened next to any of the committees or these aforementioned owners apartments then we are very, very sure that they would be deeply upset and up in arms for it to be moved straight away not the detailed course of actions that we have undertaken for the past 4 years.

In the past similar HRGR issues were raised over the wooden bar facilities and its use of hot food which is why a court injunction was granted to an owner as this never had approval by the local authorities. This was again against Committee advice, your advice, support or discussions at that time.

Accordingly, this proposal will not work in a number of regards but especially relating to:

• the clear health and safety issues with storing, mixing, transporting and spraying chemicals within a residential compound next to bedrooms that need to be urgently considered even under EU legislation that also applies to HRGR. You should be already clearly aware of this if not.
• Decomposing rubbish and waste matter in the compound which is foul, whiffy, stinking,putrid, and malodorous and is constantly blown by the cross winds including sand and other debris into our bedrooms and apartments.
• The untimely hours of the compound in a residential area be it very early or very late next to owners bedrooms when they are either trying to get to sleep or woken up very early. This is especially true of the guard dogs which were subsequently moved as a member of the committee complained.
  

If STV and IRM are willing to install a fairly well built screen here then I am assuming that they would also be willing to do this on the approved infrastructure sites as agreed by the detailed planning permission therein granted or are we now saying that the Committee and Resortalia now know better than what was discussed in detail at the time, with formal detailed planning advice, detailed plans, numerous stages of negotiations and final confirmation by the developers, local authorities and financial supporters.

In closing, we and a number of other owners, now need to detail these aspects with both IRM and STV directly and if the Committee and Resortalia are unwilling to support this then so be it. If this shows that other sites and solutions are available which they have not been informed of then this is a positive approach, If it shows that no resolution is possible then we will work the process including the potential end result of seeking another court injunction preventing the use of the compound.

In addition, if by raising this and other issues then there has been a number of harassment, verbal threats, cyberbullying and cyberstalking instances against us and others by other owners which will no longer be tolerated. This includes the actions taken at the last committee meeting to which you have clearly raised the minutes thereof. Accordingly, we will now seek advice from the Protégeles, PantallasAmigas, the non-profit initiative Actúa Contra el Ciberacoso, the National Communications Technology Institute (INTECO), the Agency of Internet quality, the Agencia Española de Protección de Datos,  and the Oficina de Seguridad del Internauta, before further action is taken.

Lets walk right over the minorities!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hi Luci/Jim

I'd like to get an update where you are with the workers compound issue and where you think it will all end up. As you know you have my support.

In the meantime, I'd like to share my thoughts with you. Although I'm not as adversely effected as many of the owners in Phase 7, I understand the issue and why it is proving so difficult to find a solution in the short term. This is a Minority/Majority issue where the majority are not being effected by the impact of the issue but might be by the resolution and the minority are being impacted severely by it and from what I understand they have a legal and a moral right to have it shut down. 

If this gets taken through the legal system, it is highly likely that the site will be shut down and the workers will have to find an alternative location to base themselves either within or outside of the resort because they don't own the land and its designated use is likely to be agricultural. There may also be implications on the organisations that have used the site and those that have encouraged them to use the site, which includes the Resort Committee, IRM and STV if what I read is factual. Those implications are likely to involve financial compensation for owners directly effected in phase 7 for any damages that they have incurred over the last x years.

The potential impact of this on the all owners including those in Phase 7 is a likely small increase in community fees to cover the impact of re-siting our gardeners etc and a capital funding issue for IRM to re-site their maintenance equipment for the golf course. It has also been flagged that the cost of this could put IRM into administration which in turn could force a sale of the Golf Course (which incidentally may of may not be a bad thing, it depends on who buys the course - therefore it is a risk). 

On the other hand if the minority do not take action they are likely to suffer a much greater loss due to the impact of continued air and noise pollution and lower property values due to what looks like a rubbish dump from their terraces. Given that it only takes one person to take legal action against the use of the site for the courts to issue an eviction notice, I believe its just a matter of time before this happens. Therefore if we need to find a Win/Win solution so we don't all end up losing out.

How do we do that?

Well, first of all, we need to remember that whatever gets agreed could always be challenged by anyone on the resort unless the legal status and designated use of the site is changed to comply with that agreement. Given that you would normally have to own the land to apply for its change of use I can't see that happening.

So the only way I can see of creating a Win/Win situation is if all parties could agree a short term compromise agreement combined with a longer term contractual solution with specific economic indicators and/or dates to ensure the point at which that longer term solution gets enforced does not have unforeseen adverse economic impacts on the owners within the resort.

Anyway, those are my thoughts, I'm sure someone will say we've already tried this and it didn't work and if that's the case they probably didn't go about it in the right way.

You are welcome to share my thoughts with anyone if you think it will help us achieve the best outcome for everyone.

John

They just do not get it!

They are talking still about reducing visual impact. 

Planting grass to hide the Eifel Tower has the same effect! 

When will they all understand this?

IRM assets devalued bt at least 47% according to Bank of Spain report.

FROM  http://loscuentosdecalleja.infolibre.es/

This article form part of the report of the Bank of Spain called operations detrimental to the financial institution Valencia. And this is the assignment of a which granted the Caja de Ahorros del Mediterraneo (CAM) to Mediterranean Resorts Investment Company (IRM). Y who took over Banco de Valencia. In addition to a confidentiality agreement with third parties, and without the executive committee of Banco de Valencia was aware of this agreement. This means that the Bank financed a credit Valencia that corresponded to the CAM. And as the operation was ruinous, the entity hit was the Bank of Valencia. "These funds provided by the Bank of Valencia to MRI both in the form of equity capital and loans are deteriorated to 47%", confirms the Bank of Spain in its report.
 
It was in May 2011 when an operation of restructuring the debt of Polaris World was launched. And this financial move was that several entities provide 143 million euros through asset purchases. These banks were Bankia (39 million) and Banco de Valencia (45 million). The remaining 59 million, so the company had to provide Investment Mediterranean Resorts (MRI), in turn owned by the lending financial institutions Polaris: Bankia 16 million, Banco de Valencia 14 million, 17 million and CAM Banco Popular 12 million.
The CEO of the Bank of Valencia sent a letter on May 24, 2011 to CAM irrevocably committing to purchase the loan from the CAM to MRI of 17 million euros. In total, the Bank of Valencia contributed 31 million euros. On June 2, the parties agreed to maintain the confidentiality of the existence and content of the agreement, agreeing also that the credit assignment would be valid even if the Bank of Valencia that is notified not to MRI.
 
But what seems most amazing is that the funds transferred by Banco de Valencia to the CAM on June 2, 2011 came from a credit account opened in the name of IRM, "unduly", according to the information that is available (the Bank of Spain), since the contract was confidential and MRI did not know the transfer of credit.
 
The transaction was agreed four days after the issuance of the funds and the executive committee had knowledge of it three months later.
 
For the Bank of Spain this performance Parra Sunday in May, 2011, apparently without knowledge of the board of directors of Banco de Valencia, to all appearances, completely lacks economic rationality was an immediate financial loss to the entity.

the Bank of Valencia and Murcia 

Banco de Valencia is being investigated by the National Court judge Santiago Pedraz and anti-corruption prosecutor. And in the record there is a report of the Bank of Spain that highlights each of the operations that could be, according to the Bank of Spain, criminal scope.
 
Most of these credit transactions were developed in Valencia, who have come out in the media. But less known are those in the Region of Murcia its epicenter.
 
And I'm going to count to, as I said in my first article of this logbook, be as indiscreet as possible, but always remain true to reality.
 
The Bank of Spain has in a report that is included in the case summary Banco de Valencia to the financial institution controlled by Domingo Parra suffered a loss of 27.6 million euros with an operation in the municipality of Murcia. Moreover, in the bursting of the housing bubble. In particular was the November 26, 2010 and January 10, 2011 when the company Habitat 2018, owned 55.6% of Banco de Valencia, Bancaja 32% and 11.8% of the company Farms Carrus, this Ramon Salvador last group, acquired by 29.8 million rustic floors in Murcia Residence Look Llevant. The latter group also belongs to Ramon Salvador, according to the Bank of Spain, which specifies that Residencial Mira Llevant had purchased the land sold "a few days before." But the price he paid Residencial Mira Llevant to initially own the land (Protected Agricultural and Promasa Elche) was 3 million. Thanks to this operation, which could well exemplify what is commonly called a ball, one of the companies of Ramon Salvador won, "in such a short period of time, capital gain of 26.8 million euros," said the report, prepared in December 2012.
 
But the regulator said that the price of the purchases of rural land in the municipality of Murcia was conditional on soils were included in some partial plans within 30 days. And if those conditions were not met, the price of land sold for 29.8 million would fall to 2.2 million. Forcing the seller, ie the Group Ramon Salvador, to refund the difference. But the deed of sale included a point that stretched until January 1, 2013 the date for the passage of partial plans. "So, was postponed three years the obligation to return the difference between 29.8 and 2.2 million, 27.6 million, to the detriment of Banco de Valencia.
And according to the information available, this investment was approved within the organization of the Bank of Valencia by the nominating committee of accord and satisfaction. But it was after his elevation to the public, so that according to the Bank of Spain, had to be authorized, therefore, "by someone with authority to do so within Banco de Valencia", which suffered a loss of 27.6 million in Group profit Ramon Salvador.
But this report puts down several unknowns. The first is to know which field is concerned. And second, to know if in the end the floor was reclassified. Some unknowns that will surely want to know the opposition of Murcia.

Interim Survey Results 6 - 10

SUMMARY: ALL OWNERS SHOULD APPOINT THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS

SUMMARY: REPAINTING BUDGET NOW HAS TO START, 5 YEARS LATE IN SOME CASES

SUMMARY: ONE AGM!!!!!!!!!!

SUMMARY: SLA'S NEED TO BE IN PLACE

SUMMARY: VERY DAMNING THAT ONLY 1 IN 4 REPLIES SUPPORT THE COMMITTEE

Interim Survey Results 1-5

SUMMARY: FEES ARE TOO EXPENSIVE

SUMMARY: OWNERS WILL NOT SUPPORT ANOTHER INCREASE IN FEES

SUMMARY: RESORTALIA CONTRACT MUST BE RETENDERED OR BROUGHT IN HOUSE AT SUBSTANTIALLY LOWER COST TO THE COMMUNITY

SUMMARY: COULD SECURITY BE BROUGHT IN HOUSE WITH THE SAME LEVEL OF SERVICE AND 40% LOWER COSTS?

YES, BY EMPLOYING OUR OWN SECURITY GUARDS WE COULD SAVE THE 21% IVA/VAT INVOICED TO US AS WELL AS AT LEAST 20% OF THIRD PARTY MARK UPS/MARGINS

SUMMARY: YES

HRGR Association

We are pleased to announce the re-launch of the HRGR Association


The current Resort Committee and Resortalia are not clear communicators or choose to ignore owner issues completely. In addition:

- Some Phase Presidents do not communicate to their owners at all.
- The Resort Committee is split
- Responses on owner issues raised to Phase Presidents, the Committee or President are very poor
- Compliance with our Statutes is hit and miss

This is why with the ever increasing number of concerns we will focus on:

1) Transparency of service levels agreements v costs
2) Debtors, ownership and communication
3) Street Lights, roads and rubbish collection ownership, transfer and costs
4) Repaint resort implications
5) Retender Resortalia contract
6) Relocation of workers compound
7) Statutes Compliance
8) Health & Safety Compliance

We aim to drive positive change for the resort with Cost Effective Transparency and Communications whereby collectively owners issues can be explored and progressed.


HRGR Association

Justice - Owners Rights

As a Community of Owners then every owner is equal and no one, or no one element, of the Community may have rights over and above anyone else. Any injustice be it affecting one owner, two, three or whatever is an injustice within the Community and the powers that be need to be clearly aware of this.

If the HRGR President, Committee or Administrator decides to support an unjust position then this is clearly unfair and individual owners have every right to take whatever action or communication they so decide to correct this injustice.

Why is it so difficult for the Resort Committee and Community to understand that we want the 

same as what they have paid for, that we are not causing them to be out of pocket in terms of 

relocating the workers compound,

There are areas outside the HRGR Resort that can be made safe even with their own access through 

the wall or fence. But....The Committee have absolutely no intention of even considering the removal of 

this eyesore because it doesn't directly affect them. If it did then it would be totally different.

Court action soon moved Polaris bar away from where it was originally . Court action soon stopped the BBQs.

The Committee again did not see the overall picture in these instances because it did not affect them. 

Workers Compound - a disgrace for the community

A fundamental issue exists regarding the public land that is being used by the resort gardeners and IRM as a rubbish dump which was never part of the resort plans or did not ever receive planning permission.

The issue was first raised in 2009 and the Association has worked with its owners and Resortalia/Committee to progress what had been offically agreed with the Local Authority.

Despite several chasing letters and raising the issue consistently over the last 4 years, the Committee have not subsequently changed their views and decided this is no longer a problem.

Furthermore, the newly elected committee have publicly attacked 2 HRGR Presidents who have raised this issue for continuing to seek resolution to what is not approved or allowed on public land.

The Committee have also started a work to rule as they see this as being unfair to them!

In order to be very clear, this land is public land, has no planning permission to be used for any other purpose than public land and the HRGR Association will fight to ensure that IRM and the gardeners are not allowed to be there.

Since 2008 the HRGR Association have been vocal in raising our views with great success to date however there are key fundamental issues that require readdressing:


1. Why did the Phase Presidents in Feb 2013 approve the reappointment of Resortalia and the approval the next year's financials and last years accounts 2 months before the Sub Community AGMs took place? Shouldn't there have been a majority of the sub communities approval beforehand? Was this legal? Do we have to hold the 2013 AGMs again? If it was, why for 2014 is it being changed to afterwards? If this advice is based on legal representation them are the people giving this really aware of what is required?

2. When the Community has one debtor's policy then why has the committee decided that the policy does not apply to our biggest debtor? Can they make that decision or should there have been an EGM to decide this resort wide significantly important matter? Now that the debtor has not paid despite the extra time allowed, then will the Committee follow the defined established debtor policy?

3. Why was the resort Health and Safety Policy changed in May 2013 that has been in existence since 2008? Is there still a risk register? It appears that the following policy statements no longer apply:
- "The presidents will take all reasonable steps to implement and maintain good standards of health, safety and environmental management on our resort."
 - "The HRGR owners committee will do everything within their power to ensure that suitable and sufficient risk control measures are put in place and maintained to eliminate or reduce the risks identified on the HRGR risk register."

In terms of "sensible to do a check to see if there were any other high risk issues that we did not know about. As a result of these inherited problems a full audit was done". So going forward are we saying that it is no longer sensible to perform further checks or that previous problems or new associated problems will no longer arise in the future? 

What has happened in order for the current committee to decide to change the H&S policy that has been in place since 2008? This is especially important since back in 2008 when the resort was being created, very little was actually owned by the Community of Owners hence its influence would of been very small indeed. Furthermore as the 2009 policy clearly stated "Where the risks identified are not in the HRGR community controlled areas but could affect people on HRGR, we will record these risks and bring them to attention of the appropriate company. At present, this will primarily be Polaris World as they have responsibility for areas such as the proposed town centre and the golf course etc."

So the current May 2013 committee statement is included in the current policy. The only difference we can see is the requirement for an independent H&S advisor which would cost the community money to perform the exercise. Surely we can still afford this?


4. The forum rules allows for free speech and the ability to raise any issues from owners. It has now been decided by the Committee that NO QUESTION can be raised to the committee, about the Committee or the running of the resort on the forum. Is the Committee allowed to do this? As this is a significant medium of communications should there not be an EGM to approve this proposed change? Under what rights is this allowed as it is not under the Spanish Constitution! Furthermore, we understand that an elected President has now been banned from this forum! On whose authority was this decision made to prevent an elected president be able to communicate the issues raised to them for resolution?

Legal Disclaimer

The information contained in this site is for general guidance on matters of interest only. The application and impact of laws can vary widely based on the specific facts involved. Given the changing nature of laws, rules and regulations, and the inherent hazards of electronic communication, there may be delays, omissions or inaccuracies in information contained in this site.

While we have made every attempt to ensure that the information contained in this site has been obtained from reliable sources, HRGR Association is not responsible for any errors or omissions, or for the results obtained from the use of this information. All information in this site is provided "as is", with no guarantee of completeness, accuracy, timeliness or of the results obtained from the use of this information, and without warranty of any kind, express or implied, including, but not limited to warranties of performance, merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose. In no event will HRGR Association, its related partnerships or corporations, or the partners, agents or employees thereof be liable to you or anyone else for any decision made or action taken in reliance on the information in this Site or for any consequential, special or similar damages, even if advised of the possibility of such damages.

Certain links in this site connect to other websites maintained by third parties over whom HRGR Association has no control.  HRGR Association makes no representations as to the accuracy or any other aspect of information contained in other websites.

We are pleased to announce the re-launch of the HRGR Association


The current Resort Committee and Resortalia are not clear communicators or choose to ignore owner issues completely. In addition:

- Some Phase Presidents do not communicate to their owners at all.
- The Resort Committee is split
- Responses on owner issues raised to Phase Presidents, the Committee or President are very poor
- Compliance with our Statutes is hit and miss

This is why with the ever increasing number of concerns we will focus on:

1) Transparency of service levels agreements v costs
2) Debtors, ownership and communication
3) Street Lights, roads and rubbish collection ownership, transfer and costs
4) Repaint resort implications
5) Retender Resortalia contract
6) Relocation of workers compound
7) Statutes Compliance
8) Health & Safety Compliance

We aim to drive positive change for the resort with Cost Effective Transparency and Communications whereby collectively owners issues can be explored and progressed.

HRGR Association