The basic principles of journalism recognize that an ordinary news story does not have the same impact as an unusual or surprising story. Hence it is not news that a dog bites a man, but the other way around. The same could be said that when a person uses a parking space as a storage room it is not news, but on the other hand it is news if he uses the storage room as a parking space, as has happened in a neighborhood community in Villena (Alicante).
The owners of a residential building with communal parking have recently experienced a situation like this in the collective parking. The owner of a garage space decided to tear down the partition of his storage room to enlarge his parking space and thus park two vehicles instead of just one as he had been doing previously.
The owner carried out this unusual initiative without prior consultation with the community. He converted the storage room into a parking space and began parking two cars in the space where only one previously fit. Although he stopped parking a second vehicle when he was warned by the community, he did not escape being reported by it.
The community made him see that he had bought a single garage and a single storage room, as stated in the deed, and not two parking spaces. Hence, the complaint for having demolished the partition of the storage room adjacent to the parking space.
A court in Villena agreed with the community and considered that using the space in this way without permission put collective security at risk, since it affected the opening conditions established in the license and could harm the rights of other neighbors. The resolution placed emphasis on those situations that required the use of group insurance.
The defendant appealed the sentence and the Alicante Court allowed the use of the storage room as a garage, noting that there were other owners who parked several vehicles and that the community had not opposed it.
The neighbors did not give up and decided to appeal the sentence. The case reached the Supreme Court, which finally ruled in their favor. The high court considers that the defendants not only added a parking space without the consent of the community, but also failed to comply with the conditions under which the Villena city council granted the license.
The TS emphasizes that the fact that the respondents are not the only ones who park two vehicles “cannot justify that they act by de facto means and outside the legal means that are open,” reports Efe, which has had access to the judgment. In it, he highlights that the owner of the parking space who demolished the partition did not have authorization or license for said activity, which, in addition, was contrary to the Horizontal Property Law (LPH).
This event that occurred in Villena is not common at all. On the other hand, there are frequent cases in which an owner uses his parking space to store objects as if the space were a storage room. Article 7.2 of the LPH says that the owner “may use his space as he deems appropriate as long as he does not carry out activities that are harmful to the property that contravene general provisions on annoying, harmful or dangerous activities.”
However, despite what the regulations indicate, it is advisable to consult the community of owners and see the statutes before using the parking space for purposes other than parking a vehicle. In some communities, bylaws may explicitly prohibit prohibiting the storage of furniture or installing closets to store items.
