DPcon’s legal department has obtained another favourable judgment on an unusable parking space, this time in a court in Salamanca, although the property was located in Madrid.
The parking space, bought off-plan, not only did not match the one on the plan signed by our client in the private contract with the developer (the space on the plan was larger and had no fixed obstacles, whereas the one handed over was considerably smaller and had a column), but access to the space was also very difficult: it was in a garage whose ramp exceeded the maximum slope allowed for curved sections under Madrid’s PGOU (general urban development plan), which should have a slope of no more than 16%. As a result, when manoeuvring there one wheel always slips and ends up lifted off the ground.
The turning radius was not complied with either, since under the PGOU it is 6 m, whereas the radius actually built is 1.98 m, three times less than permitted, hence the great difficulty vehicles have in turning, as shown in the videos of the tests carried out by DPcon.
Nor did it meet the minimum width of the access lane, which should be 4.75 m, whereas it was 2.35 m. This made it impossible to manoeuvre there and turn the vehicle round. Nor does it comply with the clear headroom (1.88 m instead of 2 m).
And of course this meant that it breached the basic requirements of the LOE, specifically articles 3.1.a and 3.1.c of the LOE: “That the layout and dimensions do not facilitate the proper performance of the functions intended in the building.”
All of this we were able to prove with the expert report prepared by a DPcon expert, including measurements, tests, comparison with regulations, manoeuvrability tests, etc.
On the defendant’s side, however, a developer from Salamanca, its expert did not take any on-site measurements of the garages as actually built, insistently relying on the fact that the developer had been granted a licence, that the client had bought the space “as a whole, at a lump-sum price” (a cuerpo cierto) and knew what he was buying, and that for technical and administrative reasons they had had to modify the garage. They also submitted a video in which a small car was able to park, although they left out a very important part: getting the vehicle out.
And so Salamanca Court of First Instance no. 2 finally handed down a judgment upholding our claim:
As the claimant’s expert demonstrates, the planning regulations on slope and manoeuvring area are not complied with, and the granting of the occupancy licence does not remedy these deficiencies, which have not prevented authorisation by the authorities.
licences, as administrative acts, are presumed valid and effective, but they do not constitute the reality to which they refer. In any event, it should be noted that, strictly speaking, this is a civil law case, not an administrative one.
(…) The space acquired by the claimant has gone from being a space for a large vehicle to one for a small vehicle.
“In truth, it can be said that these are, if the expression may be permitted, fiendish manoeuvres, but parking is possible. It could even be suggested that parking would be easier when reversing in, although this mere suggestion already shows the difficulties in using the space. Getting out, however, is more difficult. Parking nose-first is very easy, but then getting the car out requires a certain amount of skill and patience.
(…) “The defendant’s video does not record the exit from the garage, which is the most complicated part, since parking nose-first on the way down is relatively easy, but getting out is not.”
Standard declarations included in contracts cannot be enforced against the claimant, even in a public deed, regarding the conformity of the subject matter of the contract with what was contracted, as stated in article 89.1 of the General Consumer Protection Act (LGDCU), since it must not be forgotten that in this case the claimant is a consumer.
And in performing this contract for the off-plan purchase of a property, not only have the dimensions of the space been modified, which is a possibility allowed by the contract, but without proof that this was required by technical or administrative demands, but in addition the works have not been carried out in such a way that the spaces can be properly used as originally intended, for large cars, being limited to small vehicles only, such as a Kia Picanto or similar, while admitting the notable difficulties in parking and manoeuvring, which are necessary for using the space.
This judgment became final as the defendant did not appeal. If you have a problem with your garage and think your newly purchased parking space is unusable or particularly difficult to use, contact us.
Any questions?