The Provincial Court of Oviedo has ruled in favor of a community of neighbors who had approved at a owners meeting a spill to replace the building’s boiler and that a neighbor refused to pay. This neighbor owned several commercial premises and challenged the agreement, alleging that he does not use the heating system and that, according to the statutes, he did not have to pay. However, the court understands that it must pay its part of the expense, since the service is available for the premises and the change made improves the general value of the property.
According to the ruling handed down on September 24, 2025, the owner challenged the agreement adopted at the meeting in which it was decided to include the premises in the distribution of the spill for the new boiler. According to this neighbor, he had never used the heating and according to the statutes, he was exempt from participating in those expenses as long as he did not use it. The community defended that the expense affected the boiler room, which is a common element and, therefore, should be distributed among all the owners according to the coefficient.
You may be interested
Confirmed by the Horizontal Property Law: if a neighbor does not pay the fees, the owners can resort to article 21
A developer forced to pay the community’s proceeds to go to court against herself for failures in the building she built: she owns several premises and must assume the expense
The Court of First Instance No. 1 of Siero ruled in favor of the owner of the premises and annulled the agreement of the community of neighbors, freeing him from paying the spill. However, the Provincial Court of Oviedo revoked the ruling and the resident of the premises will have to pay for the boiler change.
If the premises can be connected to heating, you must also pay for the installation
The Court recalled that article 9.1.e of the Horizontal Property Law obliges all owners to contribute to the general expenses for the adequate maintenance of the property, “unless otherwise provided in the statutes.”
In this case, a clause in the 1977 statutes recognized the premises’ right to install heating “whenever they deem appropriate,” and that they had to pay for it “at their own expense.” For the Court, this does not mean that they are exempt from paying for general works such as replacing a boiler, but only for ordinary use or maintenance. “The provision is not clear. This is not a total exoneration clause. It is limited to indicating that the owners of the premises will not have to face the heating costs until they install it,” the ruling stated.
It also cited Supreme Court jurisprudence that establishes that these types of clauses must be interpreted “strictly” and that all owners must contribute to improvements that increase the value of the building. In the words of the court, “the replacement of the common element, the boiler, must follow the same regime as the new installation, as it is determined by reasons of necessity and not simple convenience.”
It was also highlighted that the boiler change was due to the fact that the old one could not be repaired, in addition to the fact that it had to be removed by regulations when using diesel. This new gas system would be available in all parts of the building, including the premises, which meant that although they had not used the heating to date, after the installation of the new boiler they could benefit from the system at any time.
Therefore, the Court concludes that the owner of the premises must pay the boiler installation fee because “the change made clearly results in the improvement and greater value of those spaces.” However, the sentence was not final and an appeal could be filed against it before the Supreme Court.