- This topic has 4 replies, 3 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 8 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
-
-
Ok, lets try you out.
a) “Gastos de communidad” how long can they be demanded legally i.e. is there a period after which they cannot be legally demanded. ( in UK six years )
b) My adiministrators had changed. There was & stll is a dispute with the alleged balance. The current administrator has given me a statement of my account showning all the movements i.e. the debits & credits for the last three years and the balance brought forward. I disgree with the balance brought forward and have asked the administrator to give me details of how the balance has been arrived.
The current administrator cannot provide me with this nor an explanation as to how the balance was acheived. Their reason for this is that the balance is older than three years & they dont have the information.
The current administrator has threathened to take me to Court. I am willing to go to the Court on the issue as I cannot see how a judge can grant an order where the amount demanded cannot be explained.
-
Dear Shakeel,
About pending debts the art 21.1 LPH(usefull law in your question) they need to proceed with the claim( Monitorio is the case name) that the Community Owners and the President gives the ok to proceed against all owners with pending debts.
About how long can be demanded the Community Costs, according with the art. 1.964 CC and last Court Cases Decisions the period that they can claim is 15 years from the Community Owners agreement to claim that money.
To protect yourself the best is to prepare copy of all your community payments and tranfers to show all Gastos de Comunidad that you have paid. In case that you own some money and they proceed with Court Actions they ´ll include legal costs and interests( the interests can be including from the Owners Meeting in which one they were agree to stablish debtors and how to process) -
@ MATEO
regarding this comment of shakeel’s
@shakeel wrote:
The current administrator cannot provide me with this nor an explanation as to how the balance was acheived. Their reason for this is that the balance is older than three years & they dont have the information.
i thought that under the ley de proteccion de datos, etc…. The information has to be kept for a minimum of 5 years? are they not in breach of the law by not having this information.
Also why do they not show the payment made by another identical property show where shakeel is ‘mistaken’?
-
@meteo solicitor.
Thanks, all very well. Leaving aside the various articles & ley & all that.
The question arises that if one is demanding an amount/balance or otherwise they should be able to
a) provide details.
b) Justify the enteries that has been debited or credited.If the above (a) & (b) cannot be justified than no judge should accept ghost balances. However if the judge is a tio of the lawyer than it would not matter what ley there is filed in the Legal library.
You are correct. I have asked them on numerous occassions & have travelled to Spain three times specifically to sort the issues out at my cost and after agreeing a date and time of the meeting.
The administrators had not prepared for the meeting, knowing well what the issues were. The person who did the book keeping was not there nor did he/she left any notes/comments for the meeting. The coefficient could not be explained as I knew it was incorrect other descrepensies were also raised. A Manual: “Que ” was offered in response in addition I was patronised when searching questions were asked by me .
My, dispute is well documented as my name crops at all the AGM’s. The others owners have paid up for reasons that they can only justify and feel that I should also do so.
For the last two years I am paying the current amount of charges as this has been done after recalculations carried out by a surveyors and the accounts have been audited. The dispute now relates to old balance/s & I have asked the current administrators to justify the balance demanded & if it is correct & due I will be happy to pay. They have consistently failed to do so.
-
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
