Who should pay?

[Mazoka]

If what you say is correct, then the 5th floor residents are at the mercy of the majority of other residents by way of being denied any future service/maintenance work that may need to carried out on the 5th floor area.

Concerning the possibility of dissolving and then reinstating the community (with the inclusion of the 5th floor). Who makes that decision? Does the president of the community have the power to instigate this process without the prior approval of other community/committee members...the president actually lives on the 5th floor.

I find it difficult to comprehend this present situation. Surely any service that is provided by and paid for by community funds has to be a service which is available to all residents/owners belonging to that community. How can it possibly be lawful if they are being selective when it comes to providing a lift facility to one group of residents/owners but then denying the same facility to others.

[Perikles]

I'm not sure who does it, but the statutes of a community need to be determined before a community is formed. If there is a physical change in the community, such as adding more units, then there has to be a change in the statutes which specifies the change in individual responsibilities. If this is not done, then the whole situation is probably illegal and there is no easy way forwards. I can't see any provision in the LHD which provides a solution, but it is fairly incomprehensible and vague on many points.

That is just my view, I may be wrong, but I can't see the point of further uninformed speculation. This really is one of the few instances where I think a lawyer is necessary.

[Mazoka]

While in Tenerife recently I was given a clearer picture concerning the issue of extending the lift facility to the top floor of the complex I own properety on.

The complex was built approximately 30 years ago. Three lifts were installed within the complex giving access from the ground floor up to the 4th floor...but not the 5th floor. The reason for the lift service to the 5th floor not being included during the construction of the complex is unknown.

After a vote at the March AGM it was decided that the existing lifts on the complex will be replaced because of their poor condition. But as to whether the lift service should be extended to the 5th floor, the majority voted that this should not happen. The owners who had voted against the lift service to the 5th floor agreed that it could be extended...if the 8 property owners on the 5th floor paid for this particular work themselves.

From what I have read in the Horizontal Property Act the decision taken by the majority voters not to include the lift service to the 5th floor could be illegal given that each property owner on the complex has an "inherent right of co-ownership of the common elements in the building" which lifts are included. I find that the decision taken by the majority to deny a lift service to the 5th floor besides being possible illegal is downright nasty. I'm considering taking their decision to law.

[Janet]

The law on lifts in higher buildings is that in blocks of more than 4 floors (not 4 floors or more) a lift must be installed in new constructions, but is not obligatory in older ones where it was not part of the original construction. A community can vote to install one in older buildings with a vote of 60% regardless of number of floors.

[Perikles]

From what I have read in the Horizontal Property Act the decision taken by the majority voters not to include the lift service to the 5th floor could be illegal given that each property owner on the complex has an "inherent right of co-ownership of the common elements in the building" which lifts are included. I find that the decision taken by the majority to deny a lift service to the 5th floor besides being possible illegal is downright nasty. I'm considering taking their decision to law.

I don't think it is remotely nasty, nor do I think it was illegal (although legal opinión might disagree). The 8 owners on the 5th floor bought their apartments knowing that there was no lift. They knew that, or let's hope they did. Presumably the price of such an apartment reflected that disadvantage. Now they wish to improve their own facilities and expect everybody else to pay for it. If I were an owner on any other floor I know how I would have voted.

The LHD is deliberately vague to allow interpretation (as a lawyer once told me). That means it is intentional that there are legal disputes. This time you really do need a lawyer.

[Mazoka]

Judging by that reply...are you sure you do not live incognito on this particular complex! 

[Mazoka]

The law on lifts in higher buildings is that in blocks of more than 4 floors (not 4 floors or more) a lift must be installed in new constructions, but is not obligatory in older ones where it was not part of the original construction. A community can vote to install one in older buildings with a vote of 60% regardless of number of floors.

As always Janet, you are a font of informational fact. 

I consider myself utterly blown out of the water. But I did manage to grab a lifebelt...you may not have heard the last of this!

[Myrtle Hogan-Lance]

Please do keep updating.  I have nothing to contribute as I live in a house but I find the working of complexes fascinating. 

Hope it works out well for you.

[Perikles]

I have nothing to contribute as I live in a house but I find the working of complexes fascinating. 

You don't need much insight into the working of complexes to know exactly why you live in a house.  The fundamental  and fatally flawed assumption is that people are civilized,

[Mazoka]

Please do keep updating.  I have nothing to contribute as I live in a house but I find the working of complexes fascinating. 

Hope it works out well for you.

Update as requested.

Had an email today from the President of the community saying that there are people with mobility problems on the 5th floor along with various other people who are in their seventies. According to section 10 of the Horizontal Law the community is obliged  to carry out work to permit accessibility to and use of common elements in accordance with the disability of the said persons, or work to install mechanical and electronical devices favouring their communication with the outside.......

The saga continues.