Bias voting with proxy votes

Post reply   Start new thread
:: New - Old :: Old - New

Pages: 1 |

Forum home :: Latest threads :: Search forums
The Comments
23 Jan 2007 12:00 AM by Rixxy Star rating in San Pedro. 2010 posts Send private message

Rixxy´s avatar

I hope someone can help me here.

I bought a house recently in an urbanization. Last night I went to the community meeting (5 hours in length) and was appalled to realize one of the owners/comittee members has 40+ proxy votes which basically means he has control over the urbanization! In fact as he disagreed with the current President, this chap proposed, had seconded (by non attending owners) another president - a friend of his - which we found out doesnt actually live in the urbanization. This new president is apparently coming here to live in April.

This controlling vote is un democtratic as it is used in the interests of one party only and is not necessaril;y even the wishes of the majority as if they are absent they have no idea what is being discussed at the time.

I could rant on about this but does anyone have any similar situation and is there any law against this at all?


_______________________

Quite frankly m'dear, I don't give a damn!

www.herbalmarbella.com




Like 0      
23 Jan 2007 11:18 AM by westport Star rating in London & Co.Mayo Ire.... 509 posts Send private message

I think it may be the developer  who has a large number of  apartments on your complex. They may want to try and keep control of the community. I may be wrong. Can anyone add to this.

Westport




Like 0      
23 Jan 2007 11:37 AM by Tish Star rating in Surrey. 833 posts Send private message

Good point Westport!

Maybe Rixxy could ask for the names..or some at least ,of the proxy voters and what apt they have.




Like 0      
23 Jan 2007 11:54 AM by Rixxy Star rating in San Pedro. 2010 posts Send private message

Rixxy´s avatar

Hi Guys - its not the developer. I am familiar with that scenario, but these are owners who all worked offshore in the same aranb state and who do not live on the urbanization.

This resident has their votes and uses them however he wants to - last night whilst there were around 30 other owners, anything we wanted if it diffrered from his opinion, was not passed!

It should not be legal to allow one person to hold the majority votes.

 


_______________________

Quite frankly m'dear, I don't give a damn!

www.herbalmarbella.com




Like 0      
23 Jan 2007 12:12 PM by FibbyUK Star rating in UK, Surrey & Playa F.... 2349 posts Send private message

FibbyUK´s avatar

Hi Rixxy,

Yes, this can and does happen and is so infuriating!

Make sure that all of the proxy voters had FULLY paid up their community fees, because if they haven't then their votes are NOT allowed. You have to be a fully paid up member to be able to vote.

Kind regards,


_______________________

FibbyUK

One off fee to pay your own La Renta tax (210 Form)
Check out my website:

http://www.payingtaxesinspain210form.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/

 




Like 0      
23 Jan 2007 12:24 PM by Rixxy Star rating in San Pedro. 2010 posts Send private message

Rixxy´s avatar

Unfortunately all paid as well! I have heard there is a way around this and I will investigate this further.

When I used to represent owners myself, they would email me their issues to raise and tell me which way to vote - I was there on their behalf, but this guy just does what he wahts and effectively has 35% of the total votes!!!

There really are times when one would like to swing for someone isnt there - as if life here werent hard enough!

Hey ho onwards and upwards.

Thanks to you all for the support.


_______________________

Quite frankly m'dear, I don't give a damn!

www.herbalmarbella.com




Like 0      
23 Jan 2007 3:49 PM by FibbyUK Star rating in UK, Surrey & Playa F.... 2349 posts Send private message

FibbyUK´s avatar

Oh that's a shame they had all paid.

We have had some motions passed in this way too..........and most of them were sh*t!   If you excuse the pun!

Good luck Rixxy, let us know how you get on and what the way round it is, if you get to find out, this would be of interest to a lot of community members.


_______________________

FibbyUK

One off fee to pay your own La Renta tax (210 Form)
Check out my website:

http://www.payingtaxesinspain210form.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/

 




Like 0      
23 Jan 2007 4:24 PM by Rixxy Star rating in San Pedro. 2010 posts Send private message

Rixxy´s avatar

Thanks for that! Yes where there is a will there is a way and boy I will find it. One kind owner rang me about it and is sending me on a website - apparently in these circumstances there are ways around. I will certainly share anything that works

Take care


_______________________

Quite frankly m'dear, I don't give a damn!

www.herbalmarbella.com




Like 0      
06 Jan 2011 9:43 PM by doedoe Star rating in Berkshire. 59 posts Send private message

 Community of 50 apartments a bank has claimed 23 from the builder as a debt. 27 other individual owners.

owners. At the AGM when voting how many votes will the Bank have if 7 other owners are not present.  



_______________________
DoeDoe



Like 0      
07 Jan 2011 11:09 AM by miket Star rating in La Mairena, Elviria. 371 posts Send private message

Hi Doedoe,

If all of the Developers unsold properties were still registered in their name at the point they were transfered to the Bank's ownership, then the bank would only be allowed one Vote for all of the 23 properties?

It maybe the case that the Bank purchased all of the assets of the developer but left them in the Developers name? This would save them considerable costs and further administration?

If it was the case that you were a private owner of more than one property the same voting rule would also apply, One vote onl.

In your caseif each of  the 16 Private owners attending or sending in a Proxy Vote could total 16 Votes, the Bank would have just 1 Vote at the AGM!!

Hope my reply helps?

 

 



This message was last edited by miket on 07/01/2011.

_______________________

Mike T






Like 0      
07 Jan 2011 11:36 AM by doedoe Star rating in Berkshire. 59 posts Send private message

 Hi Miket,

Many thanks for your reply. I will pass the information on to our President & Administration Company as they are under the impression the Bank will have the majority vote which is very worrying. 

Kind regards Doedoe.



_______________________
DoeDoe



Like 0      
07 Jan 2011 3:30 PM by claire T Star rating in Torremendo, Orihuela. 688 posts Send private message

EOS Supporter

Just to go back to Rixxy's issue - we had a similar scenario when a key-holder turned up to our AGM with lots of proxies.  We ruled that for future meetings all the proxies had to be sent personally by the owners to the Administrator or the President.  This means that the owners concerned had to tell the community directly who it wanted to be their proxy and it also gave the President the opportunity to communicate directly with the owner.  You can also try asking for votes on specific issues in advance, rather than handing that power to the proxy.

It won't address all the issues of large numbers of proxies being held by one person, but it does at least give the opportunity of direct links with those owners.



_______________________
Claire



Like 0      
07 Jan 2011 4:02 PM by Roberto Star rating in Torremolinos. 4551 posts Send private message

Roberto´s avatar

"If it was the case that you were a private owner of more than one property the same voting rule would also apply, One vote only."

Don't think so, Mike. Although I can't imagine a scenario where an owner of several units would vote differently for different properties, he would still technically have one vote per property. I'm not sure if the repeated use of question marks in your reply indicates that you are not sure about it?

The way I see it: assuming as we must (since there are private individual owners in the building already) that there exists a master deed for the entire property, detailing the "horizontal division" of the entirety, then even if the 23 apartments now owned by the bank are all on one individual deed, they would still constitute 46% (if all the properties were identical) of the total. The other 20 owners attending the meeting would only muster 40%. The important point is, that according to the Horizontal Law, for the adoption of most resolutions, all that is needed is the votes of the "majority of unit owners representing a majority of the assessment quotas" In other words, even if an owner, in this case the bank, only has one vote, that one vote may count for more than the one vote of an individual with just one apartment.


 



This message was last edited by Roberto on 07/01/2011.



This message was last edited by Roberto on 07/01/2011.

_______________________

 

"Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please"

Mark Twain

 

 

 




Like 0      
07 Jan 2011 5:14 PM by miket Star rating in La Mairena, Elviria. 371 posts Send private message

 

Hi Roberto and Happy New Year,

I had the same understanding as yourself about Voting Rights for Multiple Owners until I was corrected by the Administrator at our AGM a couple of years ago.

A Reply from a Spanish Solicitor on a EOS "AGM Meeting Forum" wrote the following comments that to a degree supports what our Administrator advised me.

I'd be very interested to receive a definative answer to this point has I own 2 properties at our Development.

 


If a builder or any other proprietor owns more than one property he has just one vote even thought he shall have the sum of the ‘quotas’ of his properties. (Court of Appeal Murcia 01 Jul 2005 amongst others)
That rule may be considered as unfair but it ensures that developers will not have effective control of the commonhold.
natively.
It is deemed as a fraud of law that situation in which a commonholder owning more than one property appoints a proxy for each properly he owns, under section 6 (4) of the Civil Code which defines fraud of law.
 
Regarding the possibility of calling a meeting by  one quarter of the owners or a number representing not less than one-fourth of the total commonhold allocations I have to say that it is not necessary to being up-to-date with community fees in order to sign the petition.
Being a defaulter has only the consequence of deprivation of voting rights as it is established in section 15 of the Act



_______________________
www.fljordan.com


 



_______________________

Mike T






Like 0      
07 Jan 2011 5:45 PM by doedoe Star rating in Berkshire. 59 posts Send private message

 Surly an owner with several property in a community complex can only have one proxy vote. The community administrator would also know the Name of an owner of each property by the NIE number, therefore, be aware that duplicate proxy forms from an owner would not count as multiple votes. 



_______________________
DoeDoe



Like 0      
07 Jan 2011 5:52 PM by Roberto Star rating in Torremolinos. 4551 posts Send private message

Roberto´s avatar

And a very happy New Year to you too

Firstly, I wouldn't rely too much on what any administrator tells you - in my experience, professional competency is not high on their agenda.

Secondly, if a "proprietor owns more than one property he has just one vote even thought he shall have the sum of the ‘quotas’ of his properties" seems to say exactly the same as what I said, namely that it would be pointless asking him to vote seperately for each property, since it may be assumed that he will vote the same way for every one of them, BUT his one vote will represent whatever percentage the total assessment quotas for all his properties comes to. To then say that this "ensures that developers will not have effective control of the commonhold" however seems to completely contradict the first statement. With a bit of luck, Felix will see this and clarify what he meant. I can't work out how "the majority of unit owners representing the majority of the assessment quotas"  can be otherwise interpreted. In the case here, the bank may only have one vote, but it will still represent 46% of the quota. The other 20 attending owners may be the majority in terms of number of unit owners present, but they still don't hold the majority of the assessment quota. if on the other hand 24 other owners turn up, that would certainly clinch it on both counts!



_______________________

 

"Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please"

Mark Twain

 

 

 




Like 0      
07 Jan 2011 7:59 PM by doedoe Star rating in Berkshire. 59 posts Send private message

 Hi All, many thanks for your replies  A VERY HAPPY  NEW YEAR TO YOU ALL XX



_______________________
DoeDoe



Like 0      

Pages: 1 |

Post reply    Start new thread


Previous Threads

HAPPY EVERY DAY CHAT - 617 posts
Punta Plata Estepona - 10 posts
Marbella Property Scandal - 8 posts
Where have YOU bought ? - 16 posts
security - 3 posts
seccurity - 0 posts
Las Vistas de Santa Maria Golf - 5 posts
Radio phone-in on Marbella planning - 0 posts
Help swell Emma's fund - I will donate £4 for every guide sold - 98 posts
Oh JUSTIN-N-N-N......... - 4 posts
Info on Urb. La Marina - 1 posts
First Post - 5 posts
Childminding jobs - 6 posts
A GOOD READ & INFO - 4 posts
Jet Skiing in the Costa Del Sol (Benalmadena area) - 4 posts
dentists Mar Menor area - 0 posts
Change Law Firm after inital Deposit - Is it possible. Almerimar - 23 posts
Show House - 4 posts
Free healthcare in Catalunya - 8 posts
Not all agents are bad - 47 posts
moving to Estepona - 1 posts
Shared Photos - 1 posts
Where is the best place to move to - 5 posts
How to escape paying the extra tax ! - 3 posts
Sky and Broadband short term - 2 posts

Number of posts in this thread: 17

DISCLAIMER:  All opinions posted on these message boards are the opinion solely of the poster and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Eye on Spain, its servants or agents.


1 |
Our Weekly Email Digest
Name:
Email:


This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse you are agreeing to our use of cookies. More information here. x