Search:     Go  
The Spanish Lawyer Online
The Spanish Lawyer Online
+ Reply to Thread
Page 11 of 17 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 163

Thread: Comunidad de Propietarios: Avoid Problems with Your Neighbours in Spain

  1. #101
    Rupee
    Guest

    Default Comunidad de Propietarios: Avoid Problems with Your Neighbours in Spain

    We have a similar problem to Charles (Wed Aug 4th, 2011). Our President has erected a wooden terrace outside his 1st floor living room, and metal stairs descending to his ground floor level and garden. I believe the law is that such extensions need the permission of other owners, which he has not sought. The terrace and stairs mean that our garden area is intrusively overlooked. What recourse do we have now that it already exists?

  2. #102

    Default

    Hello Rupee,

    Before taking any action, the statutes of the Community must be checked to determine if the terrace construction has any effect on the communal areas. Also, the town Hall ordinances have to be checked.

    If you wish to explain the case in more detail, you can contact me personally on the details below.

    Regards,
    Patricia Martin
    Immigration Consultant at Lawbird
    Check My Profile

  3. #103
    Rupee
    Guest

    Default Comunidad de Propietarios: Avoid Problems with Your Neighbours in Spain

    Thanks Patricia. I could not see your contact details. Can you send them again.

  4. #104

    Default

    Hello Rupee,

    If you click on http://www.lawbird.com/staff/Patricia.Martin, you will be directed to my page and you will find there my e-mail address and telephone number.

    Regards,
    Patricia Martin
    Immigration Consultant at Lawbird
    Check My Profile

  5. #105
    Lesley
    Guest

    Default Comunidad de Propietarios: Avoid Problems with Your Neighbours in Spain

    Pool maintenance contract: Our previous presidente sold his apartment in Oct 2011, therefore could not stand for election at our AGM in 2012. We now have a new presidente and committee. One of the aims was to look at the pool contractor, who we as owners were not happy with the service they provided. Our new Presidente asked the contractor and the previous presidente for a copy of the contract. It took them nearly 2 weeks to produce and we then found out that the contract had been renewed in February 2012 for 2 years, signed by the previous presidente. The contract is very biased towards the contractor. Was our Presidente wrong to sign a contract for 2 years when he knew that he was standing down. We have been told from another owner that when a Presidente is no longer an owner, then the vice presidente should sign any contracts etc.

  6. #106

    Default

    Hello Lesley,

    If the President of the Community was still in his role as President, chairing the CO, when the pool maintenance contract was renewed, his action was totally valid before the CO and before third parties ( the contractor ). The fact of having sold his property before his Presidency role ends does not invalidate any decision taken by him.

    Regards,
    Patricia Martin
    Immigration Consultant at Lawbird
    Check My Profile

  7. #107
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Los Cristiamos, Tenerife, Canary Isles.
    Posts
    4

    Question Possible "illegal" misuse of Proxy votes!?

    Apologies in advance for the length of this post, but it is not something that can be explained in a few words, and I did make a similar post elsewhere (that got no replies), when it would have been perhaps been better if I had used this Thread instead.

    I live on a Tourist Board registered Complex on Tenerife, where some owners are permanent residents, and others live on-site for part of the year, and rent out their apartments for the remainder.
    For a couple of years now there has been a power struggle taking place for control of the Community between, on one side the vast majority of owners, and on the other side the 'sole' Lettings Company.

    To initially gain the necessary 50% + 1 number of owners to register with the Tourist Board in order to be able to gain their License, most owners signed up with a new Lettings Agency, even the ones who let “privately” or never at all. The reason being that owners wanted to remove the previous Lettings Company as they were paying over very little of the monies legally due to the owners who had let through them.

    When signing up with the "new" Lettings Company, most owners didn't notice a clause in the document they were signing, which said the Lettings Company could use the owner's vote if they did not vote themselves. When this clause was spotted some time later the Lettings Company said they would never use that clause and would have it removed – but they have since “reneged” on this, and at the most recent AGM used all the “blank” proxy votes they requested be sent to them,to try and vote out all the existing Committee and also tried to register the votes of anyone registered with them, but who had not sent in a proxy form.

    That meant the Lettings Company had almost as many votes as everyone else put together who attended the AGM, or had sent in a “completed” proxy form with their voting choices pre-filled in.

    Using their block votes, the Lettings Company had only 2 votes short of a majority on every item voted on, and are now challenging the President's right to refuse those votes which neither she nor the Administrators had had sight of, but which they tried to use (those referred to in bold red above). They had one owner who was sympathetic to them stand from the floor for the Presidency on the day of the AGM, and if that person had been voted in, they knew they had would have enough votes to elect a new Committee from floor consisting of just themselves and their few supporters.

    One of the "third" shareholders of the Lettings Company (who is not an owner themselves, and doesn't live on-site – only works there), had more than 50 blank proxy votes which that person then used to vote against the only nominated candidate (the existing President), and vote for the person they put up from the floor (who had no Presidential qualifications at all and would have been President in name only and purely the Lettings Company "puppet").

    Many owners who couldn't attend the AGM were not aware of what the Lettings Company were planning, and because the existing President was the only person who had sent in a Nomination paper beforehand for the Presidency role, assumed she would be elected automatically, which was one reason they hadn't filled in a voting form, or had sent in a blank one direct to the Lettings Company.

    When it came to light at the AGM what was going on, apart from the Lettings Company and their few friends there, everyone else (the great majority) were disgusted with the tactics they had employed, having kept their intentions secret until the AGM itself. The majority of owners said it must never be allowed to happen again, and quite a number of those who sent in blank proxy forms to the Lettings Company, have since written in “rescinding” the Lettings Company's right to use their vote in the future.

    The real reason (I and others believe) that the Lettings Company want control of the Communidad, is so that they can force everyone who lets an apartment to let only through them, but many owners are now not happy with who the Lettings Company put in their apartments, the charges they make, and the standard of cleaning etc., and choose instead to let out to only people they know and trust, mainly family and friends. Those that do let out privately have paid the Lettings Company an Annual fee of €100 each for the privilege (which the Lettings Company demanded) in order to be covered by their “umbrella” so to speak, but I am not sure if this is legal?.

    The vast majority of owners are very happy with the current President and her Committee, and what they do, and do not want a change in favour of the Lettings Company and their few friends, who seem to want to take control of the Communidad and dictate to owners how the Complex is run.

    The Administrators of the Complex are currently being bombarded with emails from just a few individuals who support the Lettings Company (and it is thought? have verbally agreed to take over shares in the Company when the present elderly owners retire). Lawyers are presently having to be engaged to look into and answer the questions that are being raised by these individuals, which is costing the Community time and money. The few owners that are sending in the questioning emails are also trying to get the previous EGM and the current AGM declared “illegal” so they can overturn the voting decisions that weren't in their favour {such as no owner of an on-site substantial organisation (such as the Lettings Company itself) can also be Committee Members of the Communidad}, and they are also challenging the right of the President to refuse the “virtual” proxy votes previously referred to.

    Although the Community's own Lawyer is looking into all of the above, it would be nice/helpful to have a second opinion at least, especially on the question of the block use of votes by the Lettings Company, and their right to use owners votes who have registered with them, but didn't send in a completed vote form themselves.

    One of my questions would be - Would it be “legal” say, to have a Communidad Rule that says if anyone doesn't send in a vote, and doesn't attend personally (an AGM or EGM), then their vote becomes “Null and Void”, which would stop others from using it.?

    Regards

    Terry

  8. #108

    Default

    Hello Terry

    Following my answer on another thread, we will leave the question for someone else to reply, as we are unable to provide a more thorough answer at this moment.

    Regards
    Patricia Martin
    Immigration Consultant at Lawbird
    Check My Profile

  9. #109
    Bettina
    Guest

    Default Comunidad de Propietarios: Avoid Problems with Your Neighbours in Spain

    please could someone help clarify the following:

    1) is there an actual spanish law dictating that there has to be disabled access to a swimming pool? If so, where can i read this?

    My community building has ramps outside for wheelchair access to the building but the pool is small and we currently have 2 metal ladders.

  10. #110

    Default

    Hello Bettina,

    You can check article 10 of the Law of Horizontal Property that indicates the Community of Owners is obliged to carry out the necessary construction works for the good maintenance and conservation of the building and its services so it meets all the structural, living and accessible conditions. In section 2 of the said article, the Law establishes that the community will be obliged to carry out works that provide access to old and disabled people if the owners, workers or volunteers in the community so request, to be able to use the premises and services in accordance to their disability. This includes the installation of electronic and mechanic devices that helps access in and out. For this obligation to be effective, the cost of this work cannot exceed the amount of 12 ordinary community fees. This limitation will not apply if the family unit of the disabled or old person belongs to have an annual income below 2.5 times the IPREM, except the case the family has access to benefits. If there were owners against paying the fees for the construction works, they would be fined by the Administration. If there were different opinions and opposition about the obligation or nature of carrying out those works among owners, the Community would have legal right to discuss and resolve via a General Meeting.

    As you can see it is an issue that must be raised in a meeting and resolved accordingly.

    Regards,
    Patricia Martin
    Immigration Consultant at Lawbird
    Check My Profile

+ Reply to Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •