You do not have any favourites
News
-
How to detect fake documentation from a potential tenant
12th November 2025 -
BBVA anticipates that housing prices will rise another 7% in 2026.
11th November 2025 -
How can I know the energy efficiency of my home?
3rd November 2025 -
ERC pressures the PSOE and brings to Congress its bill to create a tax starting from the third home
30th October 2025 -
Are we becoming a nation of tenants? Rent accounts for 20% of the total.
26th October 2025 -
Hernández Reche: "We are heading towards another housing bubble, although it is different from the one in 2008."
23rd October 2025 -
Rodríguez advocates for intervention in the housing market amid criticism from PP and Sumar.
22nd October 2025 -
The government backtracks and will propose freezing the social security contributions of low-income self-employed workers for 2026
21st October 2025 -
Real estate associations call for lower taxes and more political agreements to tackle the housing crisis
20th October 2025 -
Buying a house with a mortgage: everything you need to know
14th October 2025
Dampness on terraces: the court clarifies who pays, the owner or the community
1st October 2025
A ruling by the Provincial Court of Granada, issued on June 27, 2025, reinforces the legal position on who should bear the costs of dampness leaking from a terrace into the apartment below. The court concluded that if the source lies in structural defects — such as failures in waterproofing or water drainage systems — the community of property owners is responsible, not the attic owner.
The decision is based on Article 396 of the Civil Code, which considers floor slabs and roofs as common elements of the building. It also refers to Article 348 of the Civil Procedure Act, giving full credibility to the expert report that identified a structural origin of the damage.
Furthermore, certain community statutes were rejected as invalid since they were not registered in the Land Registry, as required by Article 5 of the Horizontal Property Act.
The Supreme Court's doctrine (Judgment No. 80/2024) supports this view: if the damage originates from structural elements, the community is responsible. Only in cases of misuse or negligent private modifications will the cost fall on the owner.