10 May 2010 11:56 PM:

 The point is, entering a discussion with you is pointless.

Thread: Resort AGM

--------------------------------------

10 May 2010 5:01 PM:

To round this off it seems that someone has discovered that the change in the resort community fees is illegal as it is contrary to the resort statutes.  The fees must be by the cuota.

Someone obviously has been digging around and I say well done to them.

Community Statutes La Torre Golf Resort

Article 12. Participation in the association

1. The participation of the members of the association in the rights and obligations laid down in the articles of association or which may be adopted in the future, as well as in the adoption of agreements reached by the General Homeowners’ Meeting, shall be proportional to the quota assigned thereto. It is hereby determined that the quota assigned to each plot is equal to the coefficient assigned in the deed of incorporation of the property complex. The quota of each building and each independent element shall be as indicated on the corresponding deed of declaration of new works and condominium.

2. The quotas of participation, which shall be used to contribute to the expenses of the association, shall be equal for each part to the coefficient assigned thereto in the corresponding deed of incorporation.

There have been many complaints about posts being edited or deleted if a poster puts someone on the resort forum at La Torre Golf Resort.  A letter of complaint by a number of presidents was submitted and this even reached the resort AGM where this group stated what was going on was contrary to EU law.

The following is taken from the minutes of the main AGM.

“ Regarding the LTGR.es website forums, it has to be known that the censorship made on forum discussions, by eliminating for any reason part of or total posts written by owners under their own name, is prohibited by Law, both Spanish Constitution AND the European Community Charter of Freedom of Expression:
About the EC Article regulating our charter of freedom of expression, is the numeral 1, which reads "Article 20. [Freedom of expression]
1. Are recognized and protected rights:
a) To freely express and disseminate thoughts, ideas and opinions by word, writing or any other means of reproduction b) Production and literary, artistic, scientific and technical information. c) Academic freedom.
A letter was presented from the undersigned to be included in the
question and answer section, which reads as follows
34
d) To communicate or receive freely truthful information by any media. The law shall regulate the right to the clause of conscience and professional secrecy in the exercise of these freedoms.
2. The exercise of these rights can not be restricted by any form of censorship."
We insist that from now on, this law should be respected and applied by all forum administrators. In the event that it would happen again, we shall keep copies of all infringements and hand them over to justice.

Anyone who has visited the resort will know  that the 13 odd pools in the resort are all physically located within apartment block complexes.  These pools can be used by anyone in the resort as they are part of the resort community property and do not belong specifically to the apartment subcommunities. 

You have to just put up with the bullying and misinformation of a small group at the resort if you dare to ask any questions or point out something that is not right.

 

 

Thread: Resort AGM

--------------------------------------

25 Apr 2010 9:26 PM:

 This is typical.

A group of owners made a very recent complaint that posts on the resort forum were being edited and deleted if they did not follow the party line.

Anyone who asks a question - and this is how the thread started, gets it in the neck.

Someone off a forum used by the resort spotted the post and put a link in.

Then they come over.

I asked a question hoping for an answer.  It was a well described post with a question and a follow up question.  Very reasonable questions.

The other posters here don't like these questions.

So they trash the thread with personal attacks.

Anything to get away from the point in hand.

They have all joined to trash the thread.  There maybe one of them or two or three.

It is the usual pattern.

I came to ask a question.  They make it personal and try to make it degenerate into a slanging match.

That is how it goes with these people.

You may well have succeed in thrash the thread.  A moderator will come as two spam notices have been produced off this thread and decide it is a very sorry state.  They might lock the thread.

So the question will have to answered elsewhere - but it will be answered.

 

This message was last edited by worried owner on 25/04/2010.
Thread: Resort AGM

--------------------------------------

25 Apr 2010 6:22 PM:

 Barmy

The pools are all within the apartment complexes.  An outside observer might presume they were part of the apartment community but they are not.  They are held within the resort community property.

The town centre is an apartment community, but the town centre which one might assume was part of their community is actually owned by the resort community.

I am sure you know all this, but the rest of the world doesn't.

At least one of the communities passed a resolution to give their president authority to sue the resort over the illegal fees.  There were illegal and so could not be legally charged.  Hence no-one has been taken to court over these fees.  If I did know if that community and any other were about to push the button, I surely would not be telling you as you are not 2 worried anyway.

I only want to ask the question as to whether owners or communities who do not agree on a fee distribution system voted for by a majority of other communities/owners are obliged to accept that system or whether have the legal right to insist their fees are by the cuota.

ps Regarding the lights, it would seem that with many of the posters on this thread, the lights are on but no-one is at home.

 

This message was last edited by worried owner on 25/04/2010.
Thread: Resort AGM

--------------------------------------

25 Apr 2010 4:21 PM:

 The majority of costs in the resort in question stem from community property held by the resort.

There is little in the way of sub community property excepting garages and apartment block lift areas.

All the pools and most of the gardens/town centre are held in the resort community property even when they are all in the middle of apartment communities.

Resort fees do not follow the cuota distribution.  This is where the bulk of fees are.  

There has been very little dispute over the sub community fee distribution except an occasional owner saying one town house has more garden than them but has slightly lower fees.

The dispute has been about the distribution of resort costs.

As you say the majority of communities voted to have the distribution of fees based on a formula at the heart of which was surface area in the town hall records.

Fair enough.  

However there were several communities rejected this and wanted to have the cuota.  They have objected for a long time since the illegal imposition of the non cuota system.

At least one of the communities has voted on suing the resort about this and this motion was passed in March 2010.  The process is moving forward rather than anyone walking away.  There were 10 communities voted against the surface area system.

I have read in more than one place and told by an administrator that if an owner or community does not want to adopt a fee distribution system that is not based on the cuota system, as described in the Horizontal Property Act, despite other owners voting for this, they have a right to demand their fees are on the basis of cuota.  Just like the rest of Spain.

That is all I came to ask.  I will get the answer and it will be fact not opinion.

There is opinion where the law is grey but many times it is quite clear.  

The law will either allow this or not.  If the law allows this, then there is no opinion in it, only the law.

The case law dug up by the administrator applied to a case where the dispute centred on voting rights and cuota.  It did not involve fees.  

It may have been the legal opinion that this could be extrapolated to the fee situation and was being used to justify using the surface area as the basis of the new fee distribution.  It would be a valid argument and there is much to recommend it. v There is the issue of town house and villa gardens which would complicate matters but it is a useful basis to move forward with.

I have discovered there has always been the right of owners to decide amongst themselves to vary the distribution of fees in ways other than the cuota.  So there was never any need for case law to justify owners deciding to change the fee distribution.

There is no case law to justify the imposition of a new fee distribution system, which is what had happened.

Now many communities have voted to legally adopt the surface area system, fair enough - but there were several communities - so called independent communities and probably plenty of owners within the other communities who do not want this system.

Are they forced to have a fee system they don't want and costs them significantly more than would be the case if the cuota system in the Horizontal Property Act were to apply?

As I say I found this in a couple of sources and wanted to know if it were true or not.

 

Thread: Resort AGM

--------------------------------------