# Community kerfuffle.



## kowalski (Jun 23, 2014)

I sublet the spare rooms in my apartment. The landlady has given me written permission to do so. The community have voted to change their rules to make it "illegal". However, my landlady was against this move... not least because she has a previous contractual agreement with me to allow me to sublet the rooms.

I understand that such changes to community rules require unanimity from the home owners. So, if my landlady was against this move, the decision can't have been unanimous and, I think, it is therefore invalid.

Is that right, or have I missed something here?


Peace,

kowalski


----------



## xabiaxica (Jun 23, 2009)

kowalski said:


> I sublet the spare rooms in my apartment. The landlady has given me written permission to do so. The community have voted to change their rules to make it "illegal". However, my landlady was against this move... not least because she has a previous contractual agreement with me to allow me to sublet the rooms.
> 
> I understand that such changes to community rules require unanimity from the home owners. So, if my landlady was against this move, the decision can't have been unanimous and, I think, it is therefore invalid.
> 
> ...



it depends upon the actual way the community rules are set up - wherever I've lived a majority vote has been enough to carry a decision - you need to check the actual way it is set up for the one on which you live


----------



## kowalski (Jun 23, 2014)

I got the idea that only little decisions could be made by a majority from this (can't post links yet too new) -

¿Sigue siendo necesaria la unanimidad para adoptar los acuerdos más importantes en
Junta de Propietarios?
La unanimidad sigue siendo necesaria para modificar las cuestiones más importantes de la
Comunidad (las cuotas de los pisos o locales o los estatutos de la comunidad), pero la nueva
Ley flexibiliza las mayorías necesarias para la adopción de acuerdos referentes los servicios de
ascensor, portería, vigilancia y otros servicios de interés general, para los que basta el voto
favorable de las tres quintas partes de propietarios que representen las tres quintas partes de
las cuotas, aunque ello implique la modificación de los estatutos de la Comunidad.
¿Cómo pueden conseguirse las mayorías necesarias cuando a la Junta asisten muy
pocos propietarios?
La nueva Ley establece la obligación que tiene todo propietario de notificar a la Comunidad un
domicilio de notificaciones y, de no hacerlo, serán válidas las que se hagan al piso o local en
cuestión. Los votos de los propietarios no asistentes se considerarán como favorables si, una
vez notificados de la adopción del acuerdo, no manifiestan su discrepancia en el plazo de
treinta días naturales. Es, por tanto, muy importante para los propietarios de segundas
viviendas, en la playa o en la sierra, comunicar este domicilio para notificaciones, que será
normalmente el de su lugar de residencia, para evitar que sean válidas las que se le hagan a la
segunda vivienda, normalmente desocupada.


----------



## Pesky Wesky (May 10, 2009)

kowalski said:


> I got the idea that only little decisions could be made by a majority from this (can't post links yet too new) -


You can't, but I can
I found something in El País, not as detailed as your quote. It seems that the law changed last year
La nueva Ley de Propiedad Horizontal (Ley 8/2013) | EconomÃ*a | EL PAÃ�S
_*Segunda:*_ *Desaparición casi completa de la unanimidad*, salvo casos excepcionales, por lo que la vida de la comunidad se puede hacer un poco más ágil y no depender para cambios de estructura, segregaciones y divisiones o agrupaciones de pisos o locales cierre terrazas, etcétera de que todos, aunque el tema no les afecte para nada, lo aprueben por unanimidad, algo muy difícil de conseguir por el propio carácter nacional


----------



## xabiaxica (Jun 23, 2009)

interesting - I didn't realise that it had changed

however - I'm not sure that changing the rules about subletting would need a unanimous vote, going by those quotes


----------



## kowalski (Jun 23, 2014)

The pdf I quoted was written after those changes and in response to those changes.

The quote basically says that only issues relating to shared areas can be decided with a 3/5ths vote and that unanimity would still be needed to change "local laws", which is what they are doing.

The quotes from Pesky Wesky talk about issues that affect the life of the community, which this doesn't. And, in a totally bizarre move, it lists this anti-horizontal change as a positive thing.

As I read them, neither set of quotes state that the requirement for unanimity would not apply in this case.

I'm interested to hear your alternative interpretations with explanations, so I can understand your reading of it.


Peace,

kowalski


----------



## Pesky Wesky (May 10, 2009)

kowalski said:


> The pdf I quoted was written after those changes and in response to those changes.
> 
> The quote basically says that only issues relating to shared areas can be decided with a 3/5ths vote and that unanimity would still be needed to change "local laws", which is what they are doing.
> 
> ...


But in all honesty it's not our reading of it that you need.
You could go a gestor or your comunidad administrator.
Here is the law in all its glory
https://www.boe.es/buscar/act.php?id=BOE-A-1960-10906


----------



## kowalski (Jun 23, 2014)

Cool. Thanks for the link.

It seems like it would require unanimity, as it is a change to the local laws of the community...

6. Los acuerdos no regulados expresamente en este artículo, que impliquen la aprobación o modificación de las reglas contenidas en el título constitutivo de la propiedad horizontal o en los estatutos de la comunidad, requerirán para su validez la unanimidad del total de los propietarios que, a su vez, representen el total de las cuotas de participación.


Peace,

kowalski


----------



## Dunpleecin (Dec 20, 2012)

I personally wouldn't worry too much about it. For starters, its your landladies property so if she's fallen foul of having a tenant sublet then surely it's her problem, not yours.

Secondly, there are various community rules. Some have been signed off by judges, others haven't, so they have no legal basis. It could just be a set of rules everyone agrees on but actually isn't legally binding.

Thirdly, even if the above two aren't applicable, if they are going to enforce the rule, have the community got enough cash in the pot to take you to court? Even then, will they win, and if they do, what will they win and how will they enforce it? More importantly, how long will this take? You might have been gone some time by the time that happens. The only decision might be that you are ordered to get rid of the sub tenants. Also, is EVERYONE in the community adhering to the rules 100%? Do any of them have certain things they shouldn't, like enclosed terraces, or have they done something else to their property that, under the rules they shouldn't, but the community turn a blind eye? Again, if so, it would be easy to turn round and point this out, then the community would have to treat everyone the same and take them all to court. Even then, a vote by the community to take you to court will surely mean a vote to increase their community fees as where will they get their legal costs back? Not from you as I suspect that you're sub letting for a bit of extra cash and if you didn't need it you wouldn't be subletting. So they'd be like turkeys voting for Christmas.

So like I say, I wouldn't worry about it too much. I'm sure a lot of people will agree with me that they are aware that a lot (not all) of community admins and presidents are on a big ego trip and enjoy bullying people and trying to use their metaphorical weight in showing you who's boss.

The only thing I would add is that you might want to perhaps make sure the sub tenants agreements are not that long term so that even if court proceedings were initiated, by the time it got to court, they'd be gone. And they'd have to keep going over the same process which would end up taking longer than the tenancy agreements. In effect, it would be pointless for the community to bother with legal proceedings. A bit like parliament dilly dallying and wasting time when an MP introduces a bill that the other side don't want becoming law. In effect time runs out for the debate and it can never be passed.


----------

