presedent

we our having the houses painted i asked the president why should we paint the houses who have not paid the communite fees he says it is the law  this cannot be right

I stand corrected. Although I was only relaying what our ( former ) administrators told us.

we our having the houses painted i asked the president why should we paint the houses who have not paid the communite fees he says it is the law this cannot be right

You could tell all debtors that there houses will be painted after all owners that are up to date with their fees have been done. You are not refusing to paint them, just prioritising for those that have paid. This is what has been done on Mar Menor Golf Resort. Obviously this would not work on apartment blocks.

 Hi Chris,  Community law is very clear on the removal of services to owners in debt. It is prohibited and any community & it's officers can face legal claim against them for actioning the same.

This can be in the form of a denucia also if accepted by the CNP or Court which is the equivelent of criminal proceedings in the UK.

F.Parkinson Jacksons Administradores SL

The community is not denying them the service, just painting them after all fee paying owners property has been painted. debtors properties  will be painted last.

That sounds fair enough to me.  It's good to follow all these rules and regulations, but with an element of pragmatism.  Otherwise we follow the slippery slope in the UK where there's too much "protection" for the freeloaders.

How on earth can use of swimming pools be classed as basic services, surely non payers have a right to basics such as electricity and water etc. though god knows why.

But swimming pools are a luxury only fee payers should be permitted to use

A number of Communities appear to be using a wristband system to use pools and not issuing them to debtors is this legal?

 No, it is not legal.  The Law does not differentiate between basic and luxury services.  An owner is entitled by law to use the common areas and services and cannot be prevented.

From a practical viewpoint, if some owners either are not aware of their legal rights or accept the imposition out of shame or understanding for the action on the part of paying neighbors, then all is well, but as Jackson said, the community and its President could be the subject of a denuncia and fined accordingly.

 Good afternoon Gents;

The law is set down in section 3 b of the LPH with regard to use of community facilities. Basically you become a co-owner of all community parts of your development on purchase.

Hence in prevention of use for what ever reason it is considered the same as preventing a single house owner entering his garage.

You have my sympathies as I split the cake each month to pay for communities services when they would be in plenty of  funds if members would pay on time.I find these are usually the first people to complain when some thing is not available because of the lack  of funds.

So to conclude - be careful with this one as it is a common sight in court.

I am happy to answer any questions on a individual basis also.

F.Parkinson. Jacksons Administradores SL

 Our pool has recently reopened after being closed for a few years. As yet the committee have not formulated rules but are excluding individuals who have not paid all monies collected from the beginning. This includes approximately 140 euros per house collected on the basis that we were required to purchase the pool which as it turns out was not the case and this money has not been refunded.

We would like access to this legal document that you refer to that governs the use and management of pools especially with regard to the administrator refusing fobs to debtors. It seems that every homeowner has a right to access the pool.

For clarification we are in the region of Murcia.

Lifeline, copy of HPA is here

http://www.eyeonspain.com/spain-magazine/horizontal-laws.pdf

 Thank you Poppyseed for your help.