They bought homes that occupied more meters than those listed in the deeds, later carried out works on the walled land around the houses (such as swimming pools and pergolas) and spent years without paying the IBI to the Arrecife City Council. That was what some of the home buyers in the La Bufona Partial Plan confirmed, who testified this Wednesday as witnesses in the first day of the trial.
In the case of José, who bought the house in the year 2000, he acknowledged that the surface area that appears in the deeds is less than the real one, the one that delimits the wall of the house he acquired. "In principle they didn't tell me. I saw it when we went to the notary to sign," said this resident of La Bufona, who nevertheless signed the purchase without raising any objection. "Since the notary also had a property exactly the same as mine, I trusted him. I didn't see anything punishable", he said, adding later that there is "a prosecutor and a lawyer who have another" house in that same Partial Plan. "I trusted", insisted this witness, referring among others to the former coordinator of the Prosecutor's Office in Lanzarote, Miguel Pallarés, who has been off the island for years and will also testify as a witness this Tuesday, as the owner of one of the houses.
What he did assure is that the walls, which according to the Prosecutor's Office were erected on rustic protection land, were already made when he bought the house. Regarding that wall, the prosecution maintains that the promoters expanded the houses with it, occupying protected land (according to the reports of the Apmun and the Seprona, of the 40 meters of depth of the houses, 14 are on rustic land). However, the defendants claim that what was done in that part of the land is the responsibility of the buyers and that they limited themselves to erecting a wall on an adjacent property, which was also theirs, to prevent "a landfill" from being created there. But they assure that this land was not sold to the residents as part of the property and hold them responsible for the works they may have undertaken there afterwards.
The builder made "the hole for the pool"
The version of the promoters clashes with that of another of the buyers who testified this Monday. In addition to stating that when the house was delivered to her it was fenced and with the wall, this resident assured that even "the hole for the pool" was made. According to her account, the builder, Antonio Caro, told her that "if she wanted to do something inside that land one day, she would have to tear down the wall", so that the machines could enter. Therefore, he suggested making that "hole" for the pool before finishing the work. "I paid for everything together", declared this buyer.
In her case, she acquired the house in May 2000. "Later I did some little thing", she acknowledged in her statement. Among other things, finishing the pool, installing a pergola and "expanding the solana a little, because little mice were coming in". But all this, according to her, "inside" her plot.
Regarding whether the meters of that plot are more than those listed in the deeds, in the case of this buyer she stated that she did not know. "I saw it, I liked it and I bought it". "If I don't trust the City Council, who am I going to trust?", she asked at another point in her statement.
Six years without paying the IBI
Like other buyers, she also acknowledged that she started paying the IBI in 2006, that is, 6 years after buying the house. Until that moment, they were not officially registered in the Consistory and payments were not claimed. Regarding the house itself, which according to the prosecution also violates what was approved in the license, this resident assures that it "remains the same" as when it was delivered to her.
The same was stated on this issue by José, the other buyer, who assures that the house was delivered to him already with the walls erected and closed and that he has not "touched" either that wall or the house. What he did acknowledge is that he did work on that land located in the back of the house, which according to the reports would occupy rustic protection land.
"As there was land, there was a garden, so we did things, yes", he explained, detailing that he made a pool and a picnic area. However, he insisted that all these works were carried out inside the wall that delimited the house when the promoters delivered it to him. "They didn't tell me that I couldn't build", he declared, clarifying that in his case, he did the works "on his own", hiring a bricklayer for it, and not the construction company of the urbanization.
"Your Honor, I'm not very sure"
Another of the witnesses, María Rosa, provided less data, who testified by videoconference because she no longer lives in Lanzarote. In her case, she didn't even remember if the house had a perimeter wall delimiting it when it was delivered to her. After answering first yes and then no, she ended up saying that she doesn't know. "Your Honor, I'm not very sure. We had a wall when we were living there, but I don't know who made it", she stated.
Regarding the pool, she stated that it was her husband who ordered it to be built, although she also did not remember which company did the work. Furthermore, she "doesn't know" that the Apmun has ordered the demolition of part of the houses, specifically the pool area, because she says that they sold the house "5 or 6 years ago" and without warning the buyers of the situation in which it was. She also does not remember who they sold it to, because it was her husband who traveled to Lanzarote for the sale, nor whether or not they paid the IBI, because "normally" it was also her husband who "took care of all the paperwork". In fact, she couldn't even specify what number of Chabusquillo street her house was on.
The prosecutor reminded a witness that she is under oath
One of the buyers also referred to the conversations they supposedly had with one of the complainants in the case, Gonzalo Murillo, after buying the homes. According to her, he called them to a meeting to inform them "that this was wrong" and that land belonging to him had been occupied to build those homes. "He told us that if we gave him money in exchange for keeping quiet", the witness stated, to clarify later that, "well, he didn't exactly say keep quiet".
At that moment, when she was answering questions from the defense lawyers, the prosecutor intervened again, who reminded the witness that she was "under oath to tell the truth". Then, he asked her why she had not gone to report it at the time, if there were also other witnesses who participated in the meeting, and what "seems" to be raising is that there was "an attempted blackmail" or "coercion" by the complainant.
"No, not blackmail", replied this buyer, who states that she did not report it because she thought "it was a joke". According to her, she went to the Land Registry to see if Murillo had land bordering her home and, seeing that this was not the case, she did not give it importance. "And did you go to the Cadastre?" the prosecutor asked her. "No, I have no idea about laws", she replied, thus repeating a phrase that she also used at other times in her statement.
