Repairs to properties within a community

Can anyone tell me if members of a community of owners are responsible for repairs to their property,or are repairs to individual properties paid for out of community funds.

Thats actually quite a hard question to answer, due to it could be a wind up question,  or that you really don't know, or just because you pay a community charge for your pool, lighting, paths etc etc, you believe that you're not responsible for your own house repairs / maintenance....

Best left to some other knowledgable persons on here for the answer.

It would depend on whether the damage is to community property or the private property,.

In my experience the actual structure, the concrete, bricks, outside paintwork  etc.   is community. The plaster on the inside of the  walls, the  windows, everything inside,  etc. is private.

If you can be more specific,  others may be able to help you more.

Of course the administration would know.

PS I was writing this when Baz posted, so not a comment on his post.

Others might be able to help more, but very few people are going to read your post because the title is "Nikon". I only looked at it because I was mildy curious why someone would post on Eye On Spain about cameras.

As John says, you need to be more specific. What kind of property is it? What damage are we talking about? More info = more help.

I live on an urbanisation of semi detached villas.I believe that only the maintenance of communal areas should be paid for out of community funds,and not repairs to individual properties.

Am I correct in saying that it is the responsibility of individual owners to keep their property in good repair?

i used the name Nikon because when joining the forum every name I tried was already used by someone else!!

I live in a similar urbanisation, a defect in community infrastructure (such as blocked drains)  causing damage to individual properties  should also be covered by community insurance or be paid for by the commumity

You still haven't said what the problem is

Simple question.

Shpuld an individual owner expect a repair to his house to be paid for out of community funds.I have always understood that community funds should only be used to maintain common areas

am I correct?

Nikon:  Am I correct in saying that it is the responsibility of individual owners to keep their property in good repair?

That sounds like you are having a dispute with a neighbour who is not keeping their property as smart as you would wish.

If that is so, then the statues of the community would need to be checked.  They vary with each community.

Hello Nikon:  a simple answer to a simple question like you put it is that you are correct that community funds are only used to repair common property and not individual property.

However, where the matter gets complicated is, as Johnx has pointed out, on the definition of common property and common areas within a community.  For this, you have to look at the Spanish Civil Code definition of common property within a community and also the particular rules and regulations that communities can set for themselves.  Aside from the things that Johnx has itemized in his first post in this thread and which derives from the Civil Code, you have, for example, that certain pipes, drainage, and the like that are inside each individual property but run through several individual properties are also defined as common property.  Another example, the TV antenna might be common property as might be the cables that run from the antenna to each individual property up to the point where they are joined to internal wiring of each individual property.  The same concept applies to telephone lines. 

The exterior walls and the roof in semidetached properties is also normally common property and so are windows and doors that lead to the exterior.

Terraces in buildings and gardens of individual use are most usually defined as common property with an exclusive right by the individual property that has access to them.  In this case, maintenance is usually by the estatutes to the users but repairs for normal deterioration (not attributable to bad use by the user) has to be paid out of community funds.

All this is why Team GB suggest that we could try to help you better if you defined the actual problem is.  

Three properties on our community have had a repair done to cracks on pillars supporting the pergola.This has been paid for out of community funds.The owners of these properties have not been informed that this work has been carried out.

It has always been the case in the past that owners are responsible for keeping their property in good order.It actually states this in the horizontal law.

We have a new president who I am afraid will next come up with extensive repairs to his property to be paid for out of community funds.

Our previous president always ensured that work done was  fair to all. Community funds were only used for problems common to all and we did not have to pay for individual problems

Thanks for changing the thread title - look a the response since! And nobody cares what username you pick!

Finally we've found out what the problem is - wasn't so hard was it? It's still a little hard for anyone to give a definitive answer without being familiar with the property. The only thing that struck me, is if the respective owners knew nothing about these repairs, how was access gained to carry them out? I can see how external elements of a property (like a crumbling facade) that pose a risk of damage or injury in communal areas due to poor condition, may be considered the community's responsibility, but based on what you've told us, it does sound a little strange. Is it possible for you to speak to your administrator to get their take on it? Most presidents are unpaid, layman volunteers who do not necessarily know how a community functions. Perhaps the administrator should be guiding the new president? Failing that, raise the issue at the next community meeting for open discussion. 

Just my personal opinion, but I wouldn't agree with lobin's statement that "windows and doors that lead to the exterior" are considered communal elements (assuming you mean individual home's doors & windows). Damage caused to them (for example by a stone flying from the gardener's lawn mower) may be covered by the community insurance, but painting doors & rejas etc., for example, would be down to individual owners to pay for. Maybe some communities see it differently?

hello Roberto:

I did not say windows and doors leading to the exterior were common property, I said they frequently were defined as such either in the Deeds or the estatutes of a community.  But according to the Spanish Civil Code, if there are no express provisions in the Deeds, estatutes or by-laws of the community, then they are indeed common property.

Please check Article 396 of the Civil Code:  (I apologize for not translating it but I don't have the time)

"Art. 396.

Los diferentes pisos o locales de un edificio o las partes de ellos susceptibles de aprovechamiento independiente por tener salida propia a un elemento común de aquél o a la vía pública podrán ser objeto de propiedad separada, que llevará inherente un derecho de copropiedad sobre los elementos comunes del edificio, que son todos los necesarios para su adecuado uso y disfrute, tales como el suelo, vuelo, cimentaciones y cubiertas; elementos estructurales y entre ellos los pilares, vigas, forjados y muros de carga; las fachadas, con los revestimientos exteriores de terrazas, balcones y ventanas, incluyendo su imagen o configuración, los elemento de cierre que las conforman y sus revestimientos exteriores; el portal, las escaleras, porterías, corredores, pasos, muros, fosos, patios, pozos y los recintos destinados a ascensores, depósitos, contadores, telefonías o a otros servicios o instalaciones comunes, incluso aquéllos que fueren de uso privativo; los ascensores y las instalaciones, conducciones y canalizaciones para el desagüe y para el suministro de agua, gas o electricidad, incluso las de aprovechamiento de energía solar; las de agua caliente sanitaria, calefacción, aire acondicionado, ventilación o evacuación de humos; las de detección y prevención de incendios; las de portero electrónico y otras de seguridad del edificio, así como las de antenas colectivas y demás instalaciones para los servicios audiovisuales o de telecomunicación, todas ellas hasta la entrada al espacio privativo; las servidumbres y cualesquiera otros elementos materiales o jurídicos que por su naturaleza o destino resulten indivisibles.

Las partes en copropiedad no son en ningún caso susceptibles de división y sólo podrán ser enajenadas, gravadas o embargadas juntamente con la parte determinada privativa de la que son anejo inseparable.

En caso de enajenación de un piso o local, los dueños de los demás, por este solo título, no tendrán derecho de tanteo ni de retracto.

Esta forma de propiedad se rige por las disposiciones legales especiales y, en lo que las mismas permitan, por la voluntad de los interesados."

This means that those windows and doors and exterior pillars which is what we are really talking about here are common property although they can be defined as individual property in that is stated in the various Deeds (the most common place in the Deed of Division Horizontal normally made by the promotor of the building or urbanization when it is completed).

Leaving this definition aside which Nikon needs to confirm with the administrators and documents, assuming they are common property as they most frequently are, maintenance work such as painting would be to the expense of the users having exclusive use while repairs (if due to normal deterioration) goes to the community.   

Naturally, some communitites might (not really "see it" differently) but rather have regulated it differently.  If that is the case the will of that community prevails.  If that is not the case, those exterior elements are common property.

I hope this makes this complex issue more clear.

Crystal!

Three properties on our community have had a repair done to cracks on pillars supporting the pergola.This has been paid for out of community funds.The owners of these properties have not been informed that this work has been carried out.

So this is the problem

Can't understand why you just dont ask the president or the administrator for an explanation

Have asked the administrator.Not satisfied with the reply.Was given a copy of horizontal law with a paragraph highlighted which refers to common elements within an apartment building.The paragraph in question is Additional Provision,point 1.

It refers to co-ownership of common elements within a building

It is this paragraph which they are using as the case for carrying out the work.Myself and a few of my friends are concerned as to where this will lead.

i have lived on this urbanisation for nine years and community funds have always only been spent only on community areas,not individual properties .

The previous president was always fair to everyone and only did work which was common to all and for the benefit of all.It is not fair for community money to be spent on individuals.

I think the new president has a different agenda.Looks as though this will have to be thrashed out at a community meeting.

Lobin's quote of article 396 of the civil code translated by google translate

"The different flats or premises of a building or parts of them liable to independent use for having own exit to a common element of that or public roads may be separate property, which will inherent right of co-ownership of the common elements of building, which are all necessary for proper use and enjoyment, such as soil, flight, foundations and roofs; structural elements including columns, beams, floors and load-bearing walls; facades, claddings with terraces, balconies and windows, including their image or configuration, the closure member that shape and their outer coverings; portal, stairs, goals, corridors, steps, walls, ditches, courtyards, wells and enclosures intended for lifts, tanks, meters, telephonies or other services or common facilities, including those that may be of exclusive use; elevators and facilities, pipelines and pipes for drainage and water supply, gas or electricity, including solar energy utilization; the hot water, heating, air conditioning, ventilation or smoke evacuation; the detection and fire prevention; the electronic door entry and other building security as well as collective and other installations for audiovisual or telecommunications services antennas, all to the entrance to the private space; easements and any other materials or legal elements which by their nature or purpose are indivisible.

The parties to joint ownership are not in any case likely to split and may only be alienated, encumbered or seized together with the custodial certain part of which are annexed inseparable.

In case of transfer of a flat or premises, the owners of the others, this one title, will not have right of first refusal or redemption.

This form of ownership is governed by special legal provisions and, in that they allow, by the will of those concerned."

Seems pretty clear to me.

Article 396 as I read it refers to an apartment building,not individual houses.

Nikon:  

That sounds like you are having a dispute with a neighbour .................................. If that is so, then the statues of the community would need to be checked.  They vary with each community.

Do the statues (rules) clarify the situtaion ?

Duncan: "Seems pretty clear to me." Not sure if that's tongue in cheek or not. 

Lobin: "...assuming they are common property...maintenance work such as painting would be to the expense of the users having exclusive use while repairs (if due to normal deterioration) goes to the community."

The quoted article doesn't make that clear to me at all, and I can see how it could be manipulated by some to get the community to cover paying for a bloody window cleaner to clean their own windows! 

In our small block of apartments, all have windows facing into a communal passage, and all had rejas fitted from new. Who is responsible for painting these rejas? The outside walls are painted by the community. Why not the rejas too? A few owners, myself included, also decided to add rejas to their front doors - at our own expense, naturally. Who is responsible for painting these now? I suspect the answer is, obviously the individual owners. One owner actually did once ask why the (community's) cleaner didn't clean her windows. 

My point is, the law is often unclear, inadequate & open to interpretation, and going back to the OP's problem, it seems the solution, as Nikon says, "will have to be thrashed out at a community meeting." Let the majority opinion on the matter prevail!

Roberto, the quoted articles is about what is common and what it is individual.  The obligation to cover repairs and maintenance the way I described is not in this article but rather in the Horizontal Property Law and its interpretation by the Courts.

Nikon, the legislation we are talking about covers all property owned proindiviso (undividedly) by more than one owner.  It is thus applicable to semidetached houses. Just as an example, the wall dividing your house from your neighbor's is owned proindiviso by the two of you.  Article 396 and the Horizontal Property Law are fully applicable.