Property alterations

hi Ptan

mainly, yes .

Now ,  I will be  at CDA,   2 weeks in november , and for  3 months from january 15..

I need a dish for Hotbird and Astra to have the same channels, as here, in Belgium....

...like I said the first time I was in  Balsicas  in september 2007..!

( also ADSL, with Mel Beasley's system, available , I hope , from  Christmas )

jihem  = JM

Hi Jim,

As I say, if you take the two documents to be the legal rules of the association then you cannot put either the satellite dish required for the TV stations you desire or the mini dish required to receive the ADSL solution proposed by Mel on your property.

For the reasons stated below, I believe the legality of these documents could be questioned.

Phil

P.S Looking at the document properties of the level 2 doc it states that it was created by Ana Duran on 11/06/2008 but this may just be the date it was converted into a PDF.   Also it only applies to the level 2 community Jardines 1, I wonder if there are simular documents for the other three level 2 communities? Hmmmm

We also used a property agency company during our search for a property and they had very little of this information for CdA- they merely said we had to be careful of changing or altering anyting to the outside of the property. But they did say PW are quite prescriptive about what you can do.

Last year I did some work for this property company and happened to meet with one of their clients who had been over to CdA to look at the Penthouses and discuss Mirador properties.  He told me his rep had only been with PW for a few weeks- he said he was only just better than useless and tried to sell him a colleagues apartment. However he did tell him he would only be able to install PW internet and tv services. He also told him that the roof terraces on the penthouses would be open access to the public for viewing golf tournaments! Which I'd never heard before and very much doubt.

So, as you say Phil it very much depends on who you spoke to during the buying process. That said we had an area manager who clearly knew his stuff. But we werent given any of this documentation on completion, it only started to be discussed on the forum in the summer of 2008. So, none of this resolves the legality of these circumstances, but taking PW to court about anything wouldnt be for the faint hearted and you need deep pockets- I always think they've been there done that before and have a lot of resources to fall back on.

I've emailed RPM and asked them to clarify all the points I've raised below, will let you know if/when I get a reply.  Will chase up at the meeting in 2 weeks time.

Phil

There was an EGM of “Condado de Alhama” on 30^th May 2008.  At this time “Alhama Golf Resort, SL”, “Centro Commercial el Oasis de Alhama, SL” and “La Torre Polaris Hotel, SL” were owners of all parcels.  The parties met to “hold the General Meeting of the community of owners” to discuss amongst other things “Aesthetic modifications in the apartments” (Agenda item 4) – These modifications were the ones outlined regarding pegolas, lights, enclosures, fencing etc. – the minutes were signed by RPM and Polaris. 

This meeting being the “Community of owners” meeting, the community rules were established, and in place before anyone bought their property.  I don’t understand why they were not made available to everyone when they purchased, but they were officially adopted by the community, so I would expect that they would still hold up in any court action on the Communities part to have any non-compliant work removed.  Whether anyone would have a case against Polaris or RPM, in respect of their costs, based on the fact that they were not properly informed of these rules, may be a separate matter.

The full minutes were sent to me by RPM a while ago, so they must have a copy.

Ted

Hi Ted,

The fact the they did not inform the owners as they were legally obliged to, would be good defence grounds, if it came to a case although as you say probably not a winner.   but at the moment the major bone on contention  is the naff structures that have been erected by some owners, given that these are clearly against the rules, we will have to see what occurs following the inspections.

Phil

 We have just recalled that during our snagging process with 'SnagitMurcia' on 12/8/08 they mentioned a number of factors as established by the 'community of owners' which we were very surprised about and queried as we weren't aware at that point that there was a 'community of owners'- one of these was the light fixtures but we cant remember what else came up however that does establish the fact that some 'requirements' were in existence by that time even if not widely published. This sort of falls in line with Teds's info.

(in fact we remember something quite major was mentioned but just cant pull it from memory- no doubt as we didnt plan to paint the apartment bright blue we have put it all from our from our minds!)

Think we may have remembered what this 'major point' was and it was only that Snagit said we all had to have the same light fixtures. On the back of that I emailed Homestyle to ask if they had any direction on that and they responded that they had the style of lights in store- which we looked at and bought elsewhere (cheaper)

Some of these details could be just the PW staff spouting the corporate message- buy Polaris: and I also think some details got lost in translation. Certainly when we went to Homestyle they didnt identify a specific light fixture but their range of lights- which was limited

So, I do think the info was out there but the fact remains PW didnt issue it to everyone.

I've been watching this thread with interest as I'm a bit of a stickler for doing things by the book -we were made aware that there would be rules of the community and general rules for the property by my father in law who has lived in Spain in various developments for many years. However, without his input I wouldnt have really been aware of the actual documents. But having read the community rules booklet  I can see that most people have followed what is in it. and it seems to be focussing on uniformity which came up earlier on the thread. In fact the only general issue would be the variety of light fittings and as I understand PW pulled out of fitting standard fixtures and then didnt offer any clear guidance - what can they expect?

But there are some adaptations to apartments that I cant see the owners really believing are in line with any Polaris development but probably know if they dig their heels in there's a good chance they'll get to keep their carbuncle- because there'll be a cost involved somewhere to make them get rid of it. I've noticed some people have fit grills to their groundfloor windows and doors in the Spanish style and in black- these wont have come cheap and aren't unattractive but dont fit the letter of the PW requirements- how they can be forced to take them away or paint them? I imagine thats what it would come down to, some sort of legal force.

As for the SKY dishes- we sort of knew about this but cant remember where we got the info from. However we thought it was purely that dishes cant be visible or attached to the outside of the building. Therefore a small one could be concealed on a roof terrace but groundfloor apartments probably cant have one. On that basis we'd probably just have gone with PW, which I know means they have a monopoly, but it means there's less likely to be issues about removing items anytime in the future or suffering blocked signals.

Clear communication seems to be a real failing with PW but I think, from the info on here, that they are likely to go with the response that this information was available. Isn't there a saying that 'ignorance is no excuse? On that basis if PW wanted to force the issue you might stand a chance of getting some of the more appalling adaptations removed.

We've now decided to sell our apartment to my Father in Law, who is going to try to run a small golf breaks holiday company so my future at Condado will be off peak holidays in gaps in their bookings I think.  Gutted and relieved in equal measures, however, I'll continue reading the forum with interest as so many unknown facts come up that will be of use for him.

Thanks folks its been an interesting (though often stressful)  time.

Hi

I have not the  time now to answer,  but  just ONE  thing  about  PW and " they have a monopoly"...

No,   we are in EUROPA,   no more monopoly  in Europa but

free trade of the goods and access to the communication.

more later

jihem

Is the reason La Torre apartments might have sky dishes because PW upped the charges and then cut of the service when the owners refused to pay?

Whilst most minor alterations are of a personal nature, and dont really effect the general view and beauty of the jardines, ie. different exterior light fittings , understairs cupboards etc. We believe the permenant wooden awning we saw on jardin 2 is an eye sore and unfair on property owners on that jardin.  It is in all our interests that  rules and regulations are enforced in such cases as they could effect rental/re-sale opportunities and consequently values. We have all paid our monies and are all entitled to the beautiful views we were sold.    

I'm in agreement with you there Beau Brummies ,lights etc are a small piece of individuality and I think it could cause much disharmony to be demanding everyone alter those after this length of time. But, bigger building adaptions that are so out of place need some sort of action.