Interested to hear views on this

I recently encountered the following situation.

1. A small development (30 houses) was completed 25 years ago, but no community was ever formally registered.

2. Enquiries have revealed that there are no written community statutes in existence of any kind, and never have been.

3. There are no formal written internal rules or regulations in place either.

4. For much of the the time, "governance" has simply been passed from one person to another without any kind of formal election.

5. What AGM's have taken place have been attended by only a few people, and have never followed the required procedures, i.e., no first and second convocation, etc., no proper minutes recorded in a book, plus other irregularities.

6. There is no separate community bank account. The practice has been for the chairman or administrator to use their personal accounts for this purpose.

7. No-one has ever (as far as I can tell) held the post of 'President'. There has only ever been a 'Chairman' and 'Administrator'.

What in your opinion would be the status of such a "community"?

This message was last edited by 66d35 on 08/10/2012.

In my view the community as described has de facto status as a functioning community,albeit unregulated.It appears to have carried out the normal functions of a community,with the consent of the owners,over a period of 25 years.It appears that no owner at any time sought to have the community regulated in accordance with law,which of course would have been his/her right.The poor attendance at AGMs and the absence of demand for more frequent AGMs suggests that owners were happy with the conduct of the community-the AGM is of course the main  forum in which dissatisfaction can be expressed.It appears that community charges were paid by owners and  community outgoings were paid in a manner not challenged by any owner  or any entity to which monies were paid.In my view past decisions made by community are not open to challenge on the basis that the community was not properly established in accordance with law at the time decision was made

All changes,of course,as soon as a single member,or a regulatorybody, requests that the community be properly established in accordance with law-in my opinion,any subsequent decisions,made in the awareness that they might be tainted with illegality,arevoid,(until of course the community is properly established)

I am advised (and extant minutes support this), that repeated requests for legalisation/registration have been made, dating back over 15 years but have never been acted upon.

Original post conveyed the impression of a community in a state of happy inertia,free of conflict,and point 5 states that what AGMs took place have been attended by only a few people,have never followed the required procedures and "with no proper minutes recorded in a book"

If repeated requests for legalisation have in fact been made at an AGM or AGMs,with such requests recorded in the minutes,and never acted upon,then it certainly taints with illegality,in my opinion,the actions and decisions of those officers who took actions/decisions in particular matters.Those decisions were apparently made in the face of a recorded protest that the community was not funcioning in accordance with law and an argument could be made that any particular decision made in that fashion should be set aside and in my view that would be a substantial argument.However,I feel that a judge would look at the situation in the round.He would note that there had been a  considerable passage of time in these events,that the protesting individuals had not exercised their right to seek a judicial review at any time,he might query whether the recorded protest was properly made ,he might satisfy himself that no detriment had been suffered by the community of owners as a whole,he might feel that the original and indeed continuing illegality had been in some sense "cured"by the normal functioning of the community in most major respects  over a period of years.In my view,a judge would decide on balace the situation should be remedied by the immediate establishing of the community on a proper legal basis,would observe that any earlier decisions could be revisited by the  then legal community as desired but would not be set aside by him at the present time.If a paricular individual were to seek  damages from the community I feel that the judge would look closely at his conduct in the matters and would view unfavourably any apparent lack of prosecution on his part over a period of years

My perspective on the issues as presented,for what it is worth

 I can't help wondering why anyone chooses to live in these "communities".  They also seem to me to be a misnomer.  As far as I'm concerned I live in a community ...... but simply a neighbourhood of helpful Spanish neighbours, not a legal entity with presidents and fees and AGMs and minutes.  I've spent the last 6 months getting OFF all my committees etc in England in order to relax in Spain.  Last thing I'd want is some terrible jumped-up president making rules and calling meetings!

Ah well, each to their own :-)

What in your opinion would be the status of such a "community"?

Perfect Paradise

It appears to be a very strange situation. I quite take the point that it could be argued that those who have been there for several years have, in effect, consented to this state of affairs, However... two properties were sold within the last 18 months, and in both cases, the purchasers were not given any information whatever on this "community", their escrituras make no reference to it, both Estate Agents and two different firms of Abagodos told them that there was no such community, and stated that no community fees were payable.

It would seem very strange to me, in those circumstances, that any consent whatever on their part could be implied, or that they could be bound by statutes that do not even exist. Another curiosity. No-one (not even the current 'regime') seems to have any idea of the quotas that apply.

I do not know the full background to this, but it has (apparently) been far from all sweetness and light over the years. There have indeed been repeated demands by owners to "legalise" things, but they have always been over-ruled.

I have a pretty good idea what would happen in a UK court in such a situation, but it does not seem to be anything like as clear cut here...

 Very interesting post & views from the members .

It is possible the properties form a pueblo community & from the discription of what has taken place I think this is likely.

These are few & far between these days & I have only ever seen 1 in existence in 10 years in Spain. They normally exist from a original idea that there was not enough owners to form a meaningful community but that further planned development adjoining the properties by the same promotor would in time make for sufficient in number to form a community for the full planned development by  incorporation.

The planned adjoining development does not take place for what ever reason leaving the owners to their own affairs as promotors are not known to be too interested after they have sold up.

In the deeds of the properties it needs to be established if the horizontal division has been made ie the parcelas have been split into seperate ownership plots.When this happens it is step 1 in the incorporation of the community incorporation process but only where there are communal areas which can be as small as a shared path.

The use of private bank accounts is because of the lack of NIF number with the taxation authority but this could be a big problem for the operator of the account as the income will need to be taxed less expenses in their personal code if a resident in Spain by declaration.

In the case of compensation for past matters these would be  unlikely to be sucessful in Spain as their compensation culture is negative excepting car accidents.

If a owner wants to bring the matter to a conclusion then he should use a lawyer to make a court application for the judge to make a order for the community to be incorporated.

I hope this helps.

F.Parkinson Administradore

  I can't help wondering why anyone chooses to live in these "communities".  They also seem to me to be a misnomer.  As far as I'm concerned I live in a community ...... but simply a neighbourhood of helpful Spanish neighbours, not a legal entity with presidents and fees and AGMs and minutes.  I've spent the last 6 months getting OFF all my committees etc in England in order to relax in Spain.  Last thing I'd want is some terrible jumped-up president making rules and calling meetings!

These are few & far between these days & I have only ever seen 1 in existence in 10 years in Spain. They normally exist from a original idea that there was not enough owners to form a meaningful community but that further planned development adjoining the properties by the same promotor would in time make for sufficient in number to form a community for the full planned development by  incorporation.

I think you have just hit the nail on the head there. I will do some checking today, but that does ring a few bells, having gone through some of the paperwork. There were indeed originally two parts to this development, one called "Pueblo A" and the other "Pueblo B". Pueblo 'A' was completed first, and this issue relates to that. Then, apparently, the developer went bust, and 'Pueblo B" was completed a few years later by someone else entirely. That would fit well with your proposed scenario.

Very helpful, thank you.