| The Comments |
Correct, in my opinion and of the reliable sources I have consulted.
_______________________
Maria L. de Castro, JD, MA
Lawyer
Director www.costaluzlawyers.es
0
Like
|
|
Sorry Maria, me again... is there any documentation online anywhere?
0
Like
|
|
Thanks Maria, much appreciated
0
Like
|
|
|
There has been a development and I need some advice yet again!
As you know I am in debt to my community. I have been paying the debt off regularly each month, large amounts. I have now received a notification from the administrator that at the recent AGM it was decided that debtors would not be able to use the pool, neither would their guests or tenants. In the minutes of the meeting the question was asked as to how this would be enforced to which the President responded that any owner could speak to the person using the pool and he had no problem telling them either. I should perhaps point out that the President has a particular problem with me renting out my house and has been terribly rude to my tenants in the past, even when there was no problem with the Community Fees. Also there was only 4 people at the meeting, the President gets proxys from most of the residents who are never in the country at the time of the AGM, and so he is in a position of power which he likes to use. I feel that he has brought in this rule particularly to target me as the other debtors are people who don't rent out their houses and wouldn't be bothered by not being able to use the pool.
That said, I do understand the desire to have punitive measures to try and get people to pay their debts but I feel this restriction is counter productive, especially when I have been paying off the debt. If they prevent my tenants from using the pool then they prevent me from renting out the house which in turn prevents me from discharging my debt or paying any future community fees.
I am already being punished with a 10% interest charge. They also publicly display a list of debtors by the letterboxes on a public street which I believe is against data protection.
So my question is, is this legal? There's been discussion about this before and it seems they can do this but the Community Statutes need to be amended. This was just an item on the AGM agenda.
If it is and I am prevented from accessing services for which the community fees provide then during the period that the access is restricted shouldn't there be a reduced charge? How can I be billed on an ongoing basis for services which they are restricting my access to?
I believe this is covered in the Horizontal Law which I have read through but I need someone to explain it to me in plain English please!
This message was last edited by kellylieberman on 17/04/2014.
0
Like
|
This has been extensively discussed on here during the years I've been a member. I understand it IS illegal for owners/their renters/guests to be denied the use of communal amenities such as internet, pool etc even if they have not been paying their community fees. I know, from discussions, some presidents have denied these owners the use of the pool, internet etc & said those that rent their properties have suddenly paid up. However, I distinctly recall that this action was deemed illegal & owners being denied could take the community to court. That's how I recall it all. Roberto on here was, & possibly still is, a President, he'll know.
* Edited to say apologies that I've not read through thread. Maria is involved I see so I'll follow further with interest. This message was last edited by morerosado on 17/04/2014.
_______________________
0
Like
|
Sorry I disagree with what has been said about Debtors etc using non essential facilities of an Urbanisation.Maybe some dispensation can be granted in some extenuating circumstances. See Post on another forum below.Maybe Maria De Castro can expand on this subject. We had the same motion passed in our August AGM last year 2013 which was supported by most Owners at this meeting.
"
 by User on Wed Apr 10, 2013 1:01 pm
The following was recently approved at our community AGM.
The agreement to modify the Community Statutes regarding restricting debtors (and their guests, family members and renters) use of non-essential common facilities in line with Public Bulletin 20-11-2012 was approved. So, the new rule to restrict non-essential common services (pools, Wi-Fi & paddle court) to any owners in debt after the April payment will be enforced."
This message was last edited by nigel188 on 17/04/2014.
This message was last edited by nigel188 on 17/04/2014.
_______________________
Nigel
0
Like
|
I think here lies the difference between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law.
Why should someone who does not pay community fees benefit from faciliies, that are only there , because other folks pay their fees???
Those who are not up to date with fees are in a grey area and give themselves up to the mercy of the majority.
NOTE: If you do not pay and still get the same facilities why pay at all?
This message was last edited by randolph on 17/04/2014.
This message was last edited by randolph on 17/04/2014.
0
Like
|
To stop debtors using the pool is designed to get people to pay up but I am already paying and I am already being punished with interest charges. I pay a large amount every month, a quarter of which covers the current month's community fee and the rest goes towards the debt, a debt that includes a large amount of interest. I don't like being in this situation and am doing my best so I don't understand why the President thinks an extra punitive measure is going to somehow make me find more money out of thin air! He knows the money that the Community is currently receiving is coming from the rental income on my house. That is how I am clearing the debt, another 3 - 4 months and the debt will be clear. If my tenants are prevented from using the pool I will not be able to rent out the house, the income will cease and I won't be able to pay off anything, in fact I won't be able to pay the current community fees (unless that's his plan). So although it might seem like a good idea it's actually counter productive. The other residents that owe money wouldn't be bothered by not being able to use the pool either, they'd just go to the beach.
As my tenants are specifically mentioned in the meeting minutes I can't help but feel I am being targeted. There were only a handful of people at the meeting, he has proxys for everyone, and there is nothing in the minutes mentioning the fact that I have already paid off two thirds of the debt and am continuing to pay, so I'm not sure that he properly represented the situation.
Also if debtors are prevented from using the pool shouldn't the months that the restriction is in place be discounted? How can you continue to charge for something that you are not allowed to use?
I've read various threads again including this one and it seems that this is now legal but I wonder if anyone can confirm that.
Working on the basis that it is has anyone got any ideas as to how to deal with this problem. I have had this thought and would welcome some feedback...
The new rule is that restrictions apply if you owe more than 3 months "community fees". However my debt isn't just community fees. It includes other things for instance extraordinary fees and interest. The administrator agreed to split my current payments between the debt and the current month's fees so that I didn't accrue further interest charges. Presumably the portion that is applied to the debt is just applied to the total. With this new ruling though surely the debt needs to be broken down? I've done all my figures and now have the totals of all charges for community fees, extraordinary charges, interest etc. since the last time my account was in credit. How do I apply the payments that have been made since then, including the portion of the current payments that are applied to the debt. Of course I'd like to just apply it to the community fee column as then I wouldn't be more than three months in debt but I doubt I could do that! What would be the proper way to do it?
0
Like
|
I do symathise with your situation - but it could be that the community president is making an examle of you rather than punishing you. Hence the publicity involved.
To play Devil's advocate - I make sure I always pay my phone bill because I would hate to be cut off. What is happening to you is going to tighten the resolve of others who have thought of not paying the fees.
0
Like
|
I have spent hours trying to find out if this is legal or not and have found several copies of the Horizontal Law but can't find any mention of this. Lots of people seem to think that depriving debtors from using communal facilities is illegal but that information could be outdated as I have also found mention of the law being updated. Does anyone know what the current situation is?
0
Like
|
It may or may not be illegal but I have every sympathy with owners, who pay on time, and are abused by those who don't pay up on time. Get a loan from someone, other than the community ( like a bank etc) and pay what you owe.
3
Like
|
Believe me, if I could I would!
0
Like
|
kelly : Also if debtors are prevented from using the pool shouldn't the months that the restriction is in place be discounted? How can you continue to charge for something that you are not allowed to use?
I have never used our pool in over 12 years, but of course correctly, have paid for it in my community fees as the 'Statues' of the community dictate.
As you are renting out your property there might be a good argument that you should pay more than normal residents.
To some extent, you are lucky that the community members who pay, for the services your tenant enjoy, have not had your property embargoed, thus preventing use of it.
2
Like
|
Kelly, without wishing to be unkind I am surprised by your stance, to some extent you seem to be in denial. How would you feel if you paid your dues but the services/swimming pool were under threat by others who had not paid, but still expecting to use them?
I'm not at all surprised by the action of the administrator/owners and I'm sure they do not enjoy doing so, or the time spent in issuing reminders etc.
Equally I believe you are wrong in seeking protection under the HPA. I do not believe you will be successful and you certainly want to avoid escalating the situation and incurring coiurt fees and solicitors costs.
I honestly believe that you should try and see the problem from the other peoples perspective. If you were the Administrator what would you do? The sad fact is that if you're too "nice" you'll get loads of others thinking they can take advantage and be on a slippery slope to disaster.
Perhaps rather than be confrontational, you should go a litle bit meekly, cap in hand and have a conversation with the Administrator to acknowledge the problem you've caused and to let them know you will sort the debt as soon as you possibly can.
_______________________
Don't argue with an idiot, he will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.
2
Like
|
I pay a large amount every month, a quarter of which covers the current month's community fee and the rest goes towards the debt, a debt that includes a large amount of interest. He knows the money that the Community is currently receiving is coming from the rental income on my house. That is how I am clearing the debt, another 3 - 4 months and the debt will be clear.
Kelly, it would appear you have informal agreement with the president to pay off your current dues and the arrears, maybe if you could try and make this a formal agreement with the administrator, they may consider reinstating facilities. I know a couple of communities where this happens.
_______________________
0
Like
|
_______________________
Nigel
0
Like
|