Communidad Rules

This is my first post on this Forum - so not sure if I am using the right Forum Section.
Also, apologies if this or a similar question has been asked before.

My question relates to the Rules (Communidad Rules) that a Community can put in place for it's own protection and for owners to abide by.

At a recent EGM the vast majority of owners (we have over 300) voted to put in a place a new Rule that in essence says :-
“No current owner/shareholder in a major business on-site can put themselves up for Election as a Committee Member”.
The Rule was put forward to prevent a “conflict of interest” as we are an officially registered Tourist Complex, and the sole Lettings Company on site wanted control of the Community as well, ie. at least two of the three shareholders in the Lettings Company wanted to sit on Committee as well (as President and Vice-President if they could), as this would have given them enormous power.

The great majority of owners didn't want this – so voted in the new rule at an EGM last September. The predominant owner of the Lettings Company is now trying to get the EGM declared Null and Void, mainly so that the voting on the new Rule would then become invalid, and has issued a Court Summons to this effect, but the hearing has not yet taken place. The case this person is putting forward is that is against Human Rights Law to prevent someone standing for Committee for whatever reason.

:confused: as the Rule is not depriving anyone of putting themselves forward for Committee, just saying you have a choice – if you want to be on Committee – then relinquish your interest in the on-site business.

As it stands the Lettings Company can use the proxy votes of all owners who registered with them (50% + 1) if they don't vote themselves, and this is what they did at the latest AGM to try and oust the current Committee and vote themselves in instead. Most owners initially registered with the Lettings Company to allow them to get there 50%+ share some years ago, but the Company is now “high-jacking” the votes to give themselves a greater say – much to the disgust of the great majority of owners who attended the recent AGM. The right of the Lettings Company to use owners votes the way they have been is another issue which is currently being addressed in our Complex.

Apologies for the length of this post – but it is an important point – the Committee are already seeking advice from their own Lawyer, but a second or third opinion from anyone on here wouldn't go amiss.

Thankyou

Tdm

I have copied the bulk of the above posting, and pasted it into an "Ask a Lawyer" question that I have submitted.
So far I have had no reply. Is it normal to have your question acknowledged?, and how long does it normally take to get a reply?
Also is it possible to view the question you sent at a later date (to check it), and if so how?
Regards

Hello Terry,

Please accept my apologies for this late reply.

In response to your question about the possibility that there may be a conflict of interest, we believe that this agreement can be invalid. Not only because the Law does not observe the possibility, in lack of serious grounds, of a limitation of rights in the case of owners having business in the CO but also because the existence of such conflict is logical within a community of owners. The owners, by means of their vote, have the responsibility to elect those suitable and ideal individuals to represent them. In any case, the co-owners can challenge the decision taken by the committee at any time if they consider it to be against the law even if it had been approved by a majority of votes.

Answering your second question, there is not any possibility for the vote to be limited. Article 15 of the Law Of Horizontal Property regulates the use and limitations of the right to vote via an authorized representative at the General Meeting. We do not consider that there are any limitations based on your position, though the legal figure to determine this is a judge.

Regards,