A community with an elevator for more than 20 years has voted by a majority of the attendees to change the elevator machine, control panel, pushbuttons and traction cables. In the community there is a disabled person and several over 70 years old. Two of the dissenting owners say that since it is a working elevator and has no defects on their last Industry inspection, this modification should be considered an upgrade and they are not required to pay for it. Can this be considered an improvement that dissident owners would not be required to contribute to?


The work consisting of changing the elevator machine, control panel, push buttons and traction cables, has in any case the consideration of a necessary work. To this end, art. 10.1.a) LPH that are mandatory for the community “The works and works that are necessary for the adequate maintenance and fulfillment of the duty of conservation of the property and its services and common facilities, including in any case, those necessary to satisfy the basic requirements of security, habitability and universal accessibility, as well as the conditions of decoration and any other derived from the imposition, by the Administration, of the legal duty of conservation ”.

In our opinion, it is enough that the owners request it and the owners’ meeting vote for it by the majority referred to in art. 10.1.a) LPH. Nor should the duty imposed by the Administration be confused as an individualized administrative requirement to the community through a requirement. This must be understood with the general duty of conservation that is incumbent on any owner.

Therefore, in our opinion, it is not a work of improvement but a necessary one, so there is no room for disagreements and all owners must contribute without exceptions.