Community quota calculated incorrectly in our apartment in Spain

[Unregistered]

Well let’s have some facts shall we. Firstly I thought lawyers only gave opinions when they knew all the facts, not in this case obviously. Secondly the current administrators did not change the cuotas or arrange the calculation in favour of the Villa and Townhouse owners. What they did was to use the guidance from the college of administrators to look at how the fees should be divided fairly amongst the owners on a mixed urbanization such as this one where you have a range of property types. Indeed there have been rulings on this issue in the High court in Madrid. Please also see this link which covers the issue of mixed urbanizations. Have a look at the figures quoted in this article for community fees.

eyeonspain.com/spain-magazine/communities-in-spain.aspx


Using just the cuota for our resort results in Villas paying some 400€ a month, townhouses paying up to 270€ per month and apartments paying 50€ per month despite having lifts, communal lighting, cleaning, underground parking etc. Totally unfair and not acceptable.

The committee is made up of a range of owners including Apartments, town houses and Villas. The majority of owners are happy with the current fees as they are fair and reasonable. In addition the current committee has reduced the budget by 1.5 Million Euros compared to when PW were in charge and set aside some 1.5Million Euros in disputed bills. A good result for all owners.

The current fees range from 86€ to 110€ Apartments, 96€ to 131€ for townhouse and from 131€ to 250€ for villas. So the villa and townhouse owners are still paying considerably more into the community than the apartment owners despite not having Lifts, cleaning etc. The apartment owners also have direct access to the 24 communal swimming pools.

Out of the apartment costs around 33€ per month is for the direct costs, i.e. lifts etc, leaving their contribution to the general resort as low as 53€. The direct costs for a villa are much lower (Back lawns only) meaning the majority of their 131€ to 250€ per month goes toward the general resort costs and the same for townhouses who have little or no direct costs. The general resort costs are made up of swimming pools, communal gardens, security, fountains, road cleaning, administration etc which all owners benefit from equally but apparently some feel that they should not pay their fair share.

As for the debt that has been quoted on this site this is because some owners have never paid their fees and is not because of the additional fees that the apartment owners are now paying most of whom realize that they are getting very good value for money.

If the fees were to go back to the range we had before then I am afraid the services would undoubtedly suffer as the fees of up to 400€ per month were plainly unaffordable.

So Lawbird lawyers now you have some more facts perhaps you would like to comment again.

[Unregistered]

Just to complete the facts as posted above.The voting rights in this development are as follows:

All villas = 455 Have 47% of the vote

All townhouses = 518 Have 23% of the vote

All apartments = 1729 Have 17% of the vote

Town centre = 10% of the vote


These voting rights have remained the same despite the fact that apartment owners are now collectively paying 50% of the costs described by the administrator as general resort costs.

The administrators fees are now spread equally across all owners. The apartment owners also pay administrative costs in their direct costs.

The committee does have apartment owners on it. They also happen to be villa owners.


The community fees paid by the hotel, the golf club, the conference centre, the bars, restaurants, supermarket, shops – all commercial buildings, all owned by Polaris, are unknown since the administrator and president refuse to answer the question. Whether the new system of Sq meterage has been applied to these entities is unknown.I do know that in all other situations such commercial entities would pay far more than domestic and would pay business rates.

[Unregistered]

This from the eyes on Spain article referred to above. "The percentage of the budget that each property pays is set in the Title Deeds (escritura) as this is determined by the developer."

To say the administrator did not change the cuotas and then go on to say he took guidance from the college of administrators in order to divide the fees fairly is a contradiction, he either used the cuotas or he didn't.
Spanish law dictates that community fees be distributed as per the cuota written in title deeds, what is being suggested is that this law has been overruled by the high court of Madrid and that for a mixed urbanisation fee distribution need not be distributed as per cuota and that a different set of rules could apply. And yet the statutes of La Torre state that fees be distributed as per cuota.

I would think it unlikely that any high court ruling would give an administrator who is a servant of the community the authority to implement such a shift in fee distribution without the communities approval, even if approved by the college of administrators

[Unregistered]

The administrator advised apartment owners that they have interpreted the HPA. We are talking of a villa with a very large plot of 450 m2, now only paying for 144m2 because the administrator now calculates the community charge using the The Superficie Construida, reducing the amount that villa owners have to pay.

Further to my posting yesterday, i would like to provide you with the cuota for the large villa. The formula i believe would be budget x Parchela / 100 gives you the parchela cuota. Parchela cuota x villa cuota/100 is the amount that this property would pay in community fees.

Budget 2,874.500.53

Parchela cuota 2.47635

Villa cuota 5.727705

By using Superficie Construida, you will see they are only paying for 144m2 of there 450m2 plot.

[Unregistered]

Dear Sir/Madam,

The feedback we've received is that PW still owns a sizesable stock of property and that the appointed administrators have changed the rules of calculating the quota to benefit the developer so he pays less community fees and so the difference is shared among the other owners.

I have no idea who appointed the administrators. But what seems clear enough is that they seem to be favouring the developer from the queries we've received. It's up to the communers to group and remove the administrator/s and have the quotas correctly calculated.

It was the Community themselves, who appointed the Administrators. The Community consists of Villa, Townhouse and Apartment owners.

So, how can a sub-Community of Apartment owners, sue themselves?

Thank you

[Unregistered]

It is now interesting that this subject is gaining pace, I posted nearly two months ago, and I am now aware of many apartment owners who have tried to get their fees calculated legally by cuota stated in their escritura.

With reponse to the last posting, I think that you will find that the President acts as a legal representative of the community in action. He himself can be sued by the community if the members feel his actions have prejudiced their interests, which in this case they have.

Whould the lawyers be able to tell us if the incorrect calculation of community fees continures into a new president's role would also this new president be legally responsible if this is brought to his attention?

We now have a copy of the legal statutes when the community was legally constituted which were set up by Polaris from the registry, and it clearly states that the fees should be distruibted by participation share cuota's, not this new method of surface area and plot size. As artcile 5 of the Horizonal Property Act, please confirm that this can only be changed by unanimous vote of ALL MEMBERS?

It is clear that every door is being blocked by the Administrators (who is not an elected officer of the community) and the Committee, We as owners have requested an item on the above to be added to the agenda on the main AGM in a week's time, could you please confirm if the President is obliged to add this to the agenda for a vote?

Thank you for your advice and I look forward to seeing your reply.

[six gun]

The issue in this case on La Torre Golf Resort (I am going to say the name) is nothing to do with changing cuotas it is about fee redistribution and creation of multiple cuotas.

The properties in this 100+ community resort have the same cuota as ever they did.
The cuotas on their deeds are ok.

The problem is the size of the cuota each mini community has in the master community. Most the community property on the resort is in the master community. The bills for the master community are bigger than the bill properties have to pay to their own community.

These cuotas were calculated on plot size. So a community of 12 villas covers a plot as big as 140 apartments.
The average villa ended up with cuotas in the master community 12 x that of the average apartment.

There are roughly 1800 apartments : 450 villas
The sum of apartment cuotas in the master community is 17%
That of villas is 50%

Do the sums and villa cuotas are 12X bigger per property.

This can't be right. But this is what Polaris World left us with

The problem is the master community committee got too big for its boots and just changed the fee distribution without consultation with anyone. Not one vote was cast. The cuotas stayed the same, so villas still have 50% votes in the master community but only pay 20% of the fees.

The administrator Adminburgos were creative and has come up with two different cuotas - one is plot size when comparing properties within a community and the other is built floor area when comparing communities.
Indeed in fee distribution there are four methods used!

What is in the master deeds is plot size. As villas have big gardens their plots are huge compared with apartments stacked one on each other. Even the gardens of apartments are not their own as they hold the pools which everyone in the resort can use.

So not surprisingly based on plot size, villas get 12x cuota.

This is heading towards court as the committee will not accept they did wrong in ignoring section 24 of the HPA where matters must be taken to the mini communities first for approval. I suspect they knew it would not get approval so they did not bother.

The court case is over before it is begun really - simply because the committee was too arrogant or too ignorant - or too lazy to do it properly. No consultation - nothing in the mini community agm's and no votes taken.
They did put a vote to the master community agm almost a year after the event. They quotes case law in disputes about participation share between mini communities - pity they didn't quote s24.3(b) HPA - funnily enough they seem to have forgotten the statute law.

It is all a mess - they are even voting things through in "any other business" - and they believe this is OK!

All the inter-community cuotas need to be reassessed. Monetary value of the mini communities would be the most equitable and legal way to assess how one community compares with another for cuota purposes.

There will be a lot of blood and tears before this is sorted. This is an excellent example where a developer assessed cuotas in a mixed development in a way that would always create problems and a committee who thought they were too clever to bother with the law.

[Unregistered]

The issue in this case on La Torre Golf Resort (I am going to say the name) is nothing to do with changing cuotas it is about fee redistribution and creation of multiple cuotas.

The properties in this 100+ community resort have the same cuota as ever they did.
The cuotas on their deeds are ok.

The problem is the size of the cuota each mini community has in the master community. Most the community property on the resort is in the master community. The bills for the master community are bigger than the bill properties have to pay to their own community.

These cuotas were calculated on plot size. So a community of 12 villas covers a plot as big as 140 apartments.
The average villa ended up with cuotas in the master community 12 x that of the average apartment.

There are roughly 1800 apartments : 450 villas
The sum of apartment cuotas in the master community is 17%
That of villas is 50%

Do the sums and villa cuotas are 12X bigger per property.

This can't be right. But this is what Polaris World left us with

The problem is the master community committee got too big for its boots and just changed the fee distribution without consultation with anyone. Not one vote was cast. The cuotas stayed the same, so villas still have 50% votes in the master community but only pay 20% of the fees.

The administrator Adminburgos were creative and has come up with two different cuotas - one is plot size when comparing properties within a community and the other is built floor area when comparing communities.
Indeed in fee distribution there are four methods used!

What is in the master deeds is plot size. As villas have big gardens their plots are huge compared with apartments stacked one on each other. Even the gardens of apartments are not their own as they hold the pools which everyone in the resort can use.

So not surprisingly based on plot size, villas get 12x cuota.

This is heading towards court as the committee will not accept they did wrong in ignoring section 24 of the HPA where matters must be taken to the mini communities first for approval. I suspect they knew it would not get approval so they did not bother.

The court case is over before it is begun really - simply because the committee was too arrogant or too ignorant - or too lazy to do it properly. No consultation - nothing in the mini community agm's and no votes taken.
They did put a vote to the master community agm almost a year after the event. They quotes case law in disputes about participation share between mini communities - pity they didn't quote s24.3(b) HPA - funnily enough they seem to have forgotten the statute law.

It is all a mess - they are even voting things through in "any other business" - and they believe this is OK!

All the inter-community cuotas need to be reassessed. Monetary value of the mini communities would be the most equitable and legal way to assess how one community compares with another for cuota purposes.

There will be a lot of blood and tears before this is sorted. This is an excellent example where a developer assessed cuotas in a mixed development in a way that would always create problems and a committee who thought they were too clever to bother with the law.

Well its difficult for everyone to be as clever as you obviously are sixgun. By the way, are you the same sixgun that owed over 8000€ to the La Torre Community last year and one of the biggest debtors. Are you also the same Sixgun who is so clever that when you sent out info to the owners at the resort using info from the owners association that you were not supposed to have (data protection and all that) you used your own personal e-mail address so that everyone could see it was from you which you subsequently denied. That was a bit silly as all the recipients had to do was hit the reply button to see it was from your personal e-mail address. I expect their lawyers will be after you soon.

You of course are so clever I expect you will also be suing the local town hall and Aquagest for issuing the charge for rubbish collection (Basura) on a per property basis and not by cuota. This will also apply to all the other council services like street cleaning etc. Good luck with that one. (they do that by surface area by the way like the fees at the resort for the same services).

You do not have any chance of winning your court case and if you did the owners at the resort would loose as many of the services would be closed down due to lack of community fees. Do you really think the townhouse owners will pay 270€ a month and the villa owners up to 500€ per month with the apartments paying 60€ a month? No they will just vote to cut the services like the pools, communal gardens etc. Who will that hurt the most? Ah yes the very people you purport to represent the apartment owners. Their properties look onto the pools and the gardens. Who would want to buy an apartment that looked onto an empty pool and overgrown grass? The villas have their own pools and gardens so they would be okay as would the townhouses as they look onto the golf course. On the other hand if owners just stopped paying the resort would eventually be forced into bankruptcy and handed over to the town hall. I am sure that will do wonders for the values of the 5 apartments you own.

Finally at the AGM out of the 92 community presidents who attended only 2 voted against the current fees. The other 90 voted in favour and 50 of those were apartment presidents. A little out of touch with the rest of the owners by any chance. You were of course a community president yourself once until the owners you represented voted in a new president. I wonder why they did that!!

Time to wake up and smell the coffee I think.