Who should pay?

[Nova]

I think this speculation is rather pointless without a legal opinion.

Absolutely P, we can all offer our opinions and interpretations like the bloke in the pub until the cows come home, but this is one of those situations where no progress can be made without proper legal advice.

[Mazoka]

I read and interpret what is being said in section 10 as the community having a legal obligation to provide accessibilty to those people who have a mobility problem, so that they can access common elements which in turn would bring about favouring their communication with the outside.

I do not see anything in the statement of "install mechanical and electronic devices favouring their communication with the outside" that requires interpretation. These people are in need of a mechanical or electronic device to get them from the 5th floor which will facilitate their ability to access other areas of the complex.

[Janet]

unfortunately not. The law is for access to and between communal areas and the outside.

[Nova]

I read and interpret what is being said in section 10 as ....

Great.  But unfortunately nor your nor our "interpretations" matter a rat's ass to the law or the community, if you'll pardon the expression.  What has your lawyer said?

[Mazoka]

Great.  But unfortunately nor your nor our "interpretations" matter a rat's ass to the law or the community, if you'll pardon the expression.  What has your lawyer said?

"Matter a rat's ass"...hmm. 

For me to disclose to you what my lawer has said, you will have to pay me something toward his cost. 

Why would anyone need to get a lawyers interpretation on the part in section 10 where it says that the community is obliged to install mechanical and electronic devices to provide accessibility for people with mobility problems.

I believe the most suitable device required to provide the accessibilty would need a lawyers opinion. 

[Nova]

Why would anyone need to get a lawyers interpretation on the part in section 10 where it says that the community is obliged to install mechanical and electronic devices to provide accessibility for people with mobility problems.

Because a lawyer's interpretation can be taken as "advice" and you can bet your community will have based their decisions on some of that already.  Since it's the community you'll need to convince if you want to change how things are done, and you're already paying that lawyer anyway , I'm sure he can explain to you the importance of putting some weight behind your argument beyond "I read this and so I think that..." 

[Janet]

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.......

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. ...

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 ... I'm considering taking their decision to law.

"The community, at the request of owners of units in which persons with disabilities, or persons over the age of seventy, live, work or render voluntary or altruistic services , is obliged to carry out work to permit accessibility to and use of common elements in accordance with the disability of said persons, or work to install mechanical and electronic devices favouring their communication with the outside".

I read and interpret what is being said in section 10 as ...

I do not see anything in the statement of "install mechanical and electronic devices favouring their communication with the outside" that requires interpretation. These people are in need of a mechanical or electronic device to get them from the 5th floor which will facilitate their ability to access other areas of the complex.

Why would anyone need to get a lawyers interpretation

Because you have a problem. You have your own personal interpretation which does not find support here, nor in your community, it appears. You have your own personal interpretation which goes against the literal reading of the law which says "disabled access to the outside" - not "to other areas of the complex". You have your own personal interpretation which has evidently not been shared by your president and administrator, who are applying the 60% rule as laid down by the LPH. And you have your own personal interpretation on which you are considering basing legal action.

Why the hell would anyone in such a situation NOT get a lawyer's interpretation?

[Perikles]

I do not see anything in the statement of "install mechanical and electronic devices favouring their communication with the outside" that requires interpretation.

Really? All law requires interpretation. Your English translation is not much use when confronted with what the original paragraph 10.2 actually says:

2. Asimismo, la comunidad, a instancia de los propietarios en cuya vivienda vivan, trabajen o presten sus servicios altruistas o voluntarios personas con discapacidad, o mayores de setenta años, vendrá obligada a realizar las actuaciones y obras de accesibilidad que sean necesarias para un uso adecuado a su discapacidad de los elementos comunes, o para la instalación de dispositivos mecánicos y electrónicos que favorezcan su comunicación con el exterior, cuyo importe total no exceda de doce mensualidades ordinarias de gastos comunes.
Lo dispuesto en este apartado no será de aplicación cuando la unidad familiar a la que pertenezca alguno de los propietarios, que forman parte de la comunidad, tenga ingresos anuales inferiores a 2,5 veces el Indicador Público de Renta de Efectos Múltiples (IPREM), excepto en el caso de que las subvenciones o ayudas públicas a las que esa unidad familiar pueda tener acceso impidan que el coste anual repercutido de las obras que le afecten, privativas o en los elementos comunes, supere el treinta y tres por ciento de sus ingresos anuales.

The lack of clarity here requires legal interpretation. It is totally pointless arguing about it on a forum, and I bow out of this thread at this point.

[Mazoka]

Because you have a problem. You have your own personal interpretation which does not find support here, nor in your community, it appears. You have your own personal interpretation which goes against the literal reading of the law which says "disabled access to the outside" - not "to other areas of the complex". You have your own personal interpretation which has evidently not been shared by your president and administrator, who are applying the 60% rule as laid down by the LPH. And you have your own personal interpretation on which you are considering basing legal action.

Why the hell would anyone in such a situation NOT get a lawyer's interpretation?

The president is totally against the owners on the 5th floor having to pay for the extension of the lift. I personally never use lifts.

The amount of money required for the work to extend the lift to the 5th floor is approximately 10,000 euros this amounts to 1250 euros per owner. I do not have a problem with the amount of money to be paid, but there is a principle involved here concerning the people with mobility problems being denied the lift service.

I take on board and accept what Janet, Perikles and various other members of Chalkcat have said, and if I'm totally honest they are right in what they have said about a lawyer being the only person who's opinion will carry weight and, in the end probably sort this whole sorry episode out once and for all.

Thank you all for your input.

Mines a large scotch please Perikles. 

[Myrtle Hogan-Lance]

Don't forget to let us know what happens in the end, if there is one.