Compulsory Installation of a lift

Yes, if anyone in a block of flats who is disabled or over the age of 70 requests a lift then it must be installed but, as you say, providing the cost does not exceed 12 months of community fees. You need to check the amount received in community fees for the year and, if is more than that, your administrators can claim the difference from various funds such as Next Generation EU funds or if the person requesting it is willing to pay the cost over and above the 12 months community fees.

If they aren't willing and there are no funds available for older buildings, maybe check with the ayuntamiento if any grants can be applied for.

This is under the EU ruling of 2024.

Lifts are expensive to maintain never mind install. In our Community only the apartments in blocks with a lift have to pay extra community charges towards their upkeep.  

Bee

Noting the comments made - but surely retro-fitting lifts to a block of flats is nigh on impossible without compromising the integrity of existing fire escapes or individually owned property?

I presume the potential conclusion to the post that Marcliff made is that the lift would not be installed if the cost was too high and the individual requesting it refused to pay the difference if available grants didn't cover it?

I'd be somewhat peeved if such a request was made of me (it won't because I don't live in a community incorporating a block of flats) as I'd expect the person to take some responsibility and move to accomodation more suited to them as lifts are a non-starter for exiting in an emergency as they automatically go down to the ground floor and open their doors so as to prevent usage.

Anyone at any time can become disabled and if they have lived in an apartment for years then how are they expected to get to their apartment without a lift? All residential blocks should be made to install lifts.

Steve 

All new ones with 3(?) or more storeys now have lifts. It is retrofitting the older ones that is the problem.

I think it is a broadly similar argument to those made earlier on another thread in respect of EPCs.

1. New builds should be made to comply with whatever EPC requirments are in place at the time of their construction. New builds should be made to install lifts if they are to be 3+ storey high.

2. Existing builds should be brought up to the highest standard possible but it should not be compulsory to do so if it can be demonstrated that the costs to do so are prohibitive / disproprtionate to the value of the structure.

And as mentioned, having a lift does not mean a disabled individual is able to use them as a means of an escape in the case of an emergency. I remember the fun we had periodically from god knows what floor when the fire alarm used to go off in the skyscraper of an office. However, at least in offices, the employer is required to implement specific evacuation plans to support disabled workers.

I'm not aware of that being the case in residential blocks as there's likely no dedicated and paid for resource that is always going to be available to perform such a function in all cases.

There is then always the possibility that the one lift installed in such blocks is out of order - again, in offices etc there are often more than one lift available for people to use. I think if I lived in a high level apartment and was unfortuanate to suffer deterioration in my mobility or a sudden event that resulted in mobile disability, I'd be looking to move accomodation whether there was or was not a lift in place.

Section 10 & 11 of the Horizontal law

"1. The community is obliged to carry out work necessary for the proper upkeep and maintenance of the building and its facilities in order to preserve appropriate conditions as regards its structure, imperviousness, habitation, accessibility and safety. 

 2. 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, provided the total cost of such work does not exceed the ordinary common expenses of three months. 

Section 11 

 1. No unit owner may demand new installations, facilities, services or improvements not required for the correct maintenance, habitation, safety and accessibility of the building, in accordance with its nature and characteristics. 

 2. Where resolutions are validly adopted to carry out improvements that may not be imposed in accordance with the provisions of the last preceding subsection and whose cost of installation exceed theordinary common expenses for three months, dissenters shall not be bound, nor their fee modified, even where they cannot be deprived of the improvement or benefit. If dissenters wish at any time to take advantage of the benefits of the innovation, they shall have to share in the cost of installation and maintenance, duly updated by application of the legal interest rate. 

 3. Where resolutions are validly adopted to carry out work to ensure accessibility, the community shall be obliged to pay the cost even where it exceeds the ordinary common expenses of three months. 4. Innovations impeding or barring any unit owner from using and enjoying any part of the building shall require, in any case, the express consent of such owner. 5. Special assessments for the implementation of improvements made or to be made in the building shall be at the expense of whoever is the unit owner at the moment when the amounts corresponding to such improvements become due. 

Please check the latest edition of the Horizontal law

I would think that the installation of lifts or other extrordinary non maintainence costs would not be charged to the existing community fund but would be raised as a separate cost to be shared by assenting voters at the AGM. If you do not want to pay for the lift then you need to vote against it at the AGM. Only assenting voters will need to pay but non assenting voters may be prohibited (if possible) from using the extra facility. 

If someone lives on the ground floor of a apartment block would they be required to help fund a lift being requested for said block?

Rgds,

Aitch.

If the community rules specifically state there are exemptions to payment, such as for those living on the ground floor, then the whole community should pay. However there are systems to exempt certain properties but those exempt are not allowed access to the lift (as if that could be enforced).