If you’re part of the 65% of Spaniards who live in apartments, you’ll know that coexistence within the same building isn’t always easy. It’s a time to make joint decisions, iron out differences, and (sometimes) face thorny situations. For example, how to respond to a delinquent neighbor. What margin does the law leave to push you for your fees or contributions? Can we deny you use of the community pool, gym or paddle tennis court, if any? And the elevator? Can the homeowners association install a lock and deny the delinquent neighbor a key?
The horizontal property law is clear on this point.
Have debt? There is no elevator. It sounds tempting. When a community of owners is faced with a neighbor who does not pay his dues or expenses (and this is not so unusual) there may be a temptation to apply penalties. For example, depriving you of the use of common facilities. After all… does anyone who does not contribute to its maintenance have the right to enjoy a pool, garden or an elevator? A quick Google search confirms that this is an idea that has crossed the minds of multiple communities
The ‘Bible’ of Coexistence. As usual when we talk about housing blocks, we must look for answers in the ‘bible’ of coexistence: the Horizontal Property Law (LPH). In it, an entire article (No. 21) is devoted to explaining how a community should proceed when faced with a neighbor who accumulates debt.
“The meeting of owners may agree on inconvenient measures against late payment for the period in which said circumstances remain, such as the establishment of an interest greater than the legal interest or temporary deprivation of the use of services or facilities, provided that they cannot be considered humiliating or disproportionate or that they affect the habitability of the property. In no case can these measures be retroactive and included in the Acts. In any case, credits in favor of the community shall accrue interest from the moment of the corresponding payment and shall not be enforced..
Is this an important article? Many, because a fundamental caveat slips in: Communities have a certain margin to claim debt, but in no case can they avoid the red lines established by law. And one of them (required) is that “temporary deprivation of use of services and facilities” cannot be “derogatory or disproportionate”. Nor will it affect the “habitability of the property”.
In general, experts consider that vetoing access to common areas is “controversial”, but it is a matter of debate whether the use of a swimming pool or a gym (recreational area) can be restricted, and it is another matter to debate an elevator. The LPH actually values lifts so much that it provides that if a building lacks one and an elderly person demands it, the neighborhood association must install it without the need for a contract. Of course, a series of legal requirements must be met.
“Legally very controversial”. As if LPH wasn’t clear enough, experts stress that communities need to be careful when restricting access to their facilities. “Restricting the use of elevators to only those owners who are up to date with the payment of approved contributions or fees is legally highly controversial and, in our view, clearly challengeable before the courts,” warns Legalitas. the country.
“Elevators are part of the building’s common elements and its use directly affects the habitability and normal use of the house, so the community cannot deprive an owner of its use as a measure of stress in late payment situations,” he stressed. It does not matter whether the decision has board approval. Agreed upon by neighbors does not mean it is “automatically” legal. “Any owner who feels affected can object.”
So what could be the key? They are different things. As specialized portals Idealista and Fotocasa remind us, it is not strange that there are communities in the neighborhood that decide to keep the keys in their elevators. In fact, there are some cases that even make sense. The key is the accessibility of the lift and whether the lock restricts or restricts its use to the block’s residents, something that can be controversial.
Installing a lock on an elevator involves changing a common component, so the decision to do this or not must first go through an owners meeting. There too sufficient support (three fifths) must be achieved. Another important aspect is why the lock is installed and, above all, what it will be used for. At the end of the day, LPH makes it clear that we cannot prevent a neighbor from entering their home regardless of their debt.
Key: Security. That is the crux of the matter. Not all buildings are the same. Not even their elevator. And there are cases where the use of a keyed system can be important to ensure homeowner and home security. For example, if we talk about elevators installed on the facade and which are accessible from the outside (something not uncommon) or which communicate with private areas such as garages and storage rooms.
There are even elevators connecting to the balcony or the interior of the house, so installing a key lock reinforces your privacy. This is an important nuance. The LPH establishes “necessary functions” as “essential” measures to “meet essential basic requirements”, including security.
Picture | Andrew Spencer (Unsplash)
In Xataka | Horizontal property law is quite clear about one of the most controversial events of winter: Christmas
