Urban leases
Translation generated by AI. Access the original version
Non-existence of real estate harassment by the company to the tenant
The Superior Court of Justice of Catalonia (TSJ) has upheld the appeal of a commercial entity and has annulled an administrative sanction that had been imposed on it for an alleged very serious infringement of real estate harassment. According to the TSJ, based on the information in the file, it could not be considered proven that the company had committed such harassment.
In this case, the sanction was linked to problems in the building and the dwelling (for example, repairs to downspouts/drains and the water issue, which was even considered non-potable due to lead concentration). The Administration believed that not properly addressing those repairs fit into the concept of "real estate harassment". However, the TSJ explains that, although leaving pending works or delaying repairs may be part of the context, that does not automatically turn the situation into real estate harassment.
The key lies in what the Catalan law requires, as real estate harassment involves acting (or failing to act) in an abusive manner with the aim of disturbing the occupant , creating a hostile environment, and ultimately, forcing them to make an unwanted decision about their right to occupy the dwelling (for example, to leave). Put simply, it is not enough for there to be poor conditions or conflicts over repairs; there needs to be a kind of "strategy" strategy with a certain intensity to evict the person. Here, the High Court sees that there were rental agreements
(2010 and 2015), agreements for rent reduction or rent-free periods due to problems and renovations, and does not see clear signs of an intent to evict . Even when the will not to renew the contract was communicated in 2018, the court does not detect a change in attitude showing a harassment plan. Therefore, it concludes that real estate harassment is not a "tertium genus" of simple breach of conservation duties or something that occurs just because one wants to end a contract; it requires harassment and eviction purpose , and that was not proven. Therefore, it overturns the previous judgment and annuls the penalty, without imposing costs. harassment and eviction purpose , and that was not proven. Therefore, the previous judgment is revoked and the sanction is annulled, without imposing costs.
If you find yourself in a similar situation or have any controversy related to a housing lease, our professionals can analyze your case and take the most appropriate actions in defense of your interests-
Elevator maintenance
Nullity of duration clauses and excessive notice in successive contracts This case deals with a typical contract for “preventive maintenance” of elevators, which are not fulfilled in a single day, but are provided month by month (what is called in law a successive contract). A maintenance company sued a community of owners because it decided to terminate the contract before the agreed term expired. The company claimed two things, on one hand, that unpaid invoices were paid; and, on the other, compensation for “breaking” the contract early. The conflict revolved around two clauses of the contract where one set a duration of 3 years and the other required a notice of 180 days (six months) in advance if one wanted to terminate the contract. The community argued that these conditions were abusive in the case of a consumer (in this case, the community itself). In the first instance, the court ruled in favor of the company, ordering the community to pay both the compensation for early termination and the outstanding invoices (in addition to interest and costs). However, on appeal, the Provincial Court of Málaga changed the criterion, declaring the 3-year duration clause and the 180-day notice clause null and abusive. What is the practical consequence? If those clauses are invalid, the company cannot rely on them to demand a penalty or compensation for having terminated the contract early. Nevertheless, the community must pay what it actually owed, the outstanding invoices for services already rendered. The Supreme Court confirmed this outcome, the duration and notice clauses are considered null, no compensation is due for ending the contract early, and only unpaid invoices are owed.
-
Urban leases
Does a reversible work by the tenant give the owner the right to terminate the contract?
-
Urban Leases
This website uses both its own and third-party cookies to analyze our services and navigation on our website in order to improve its contents (analytical purposes: measure visits and sources of web traffic). The legal basis is the consent of the user, except in the case of basic cookies, which are essential to navigate this website.