How to tell whether the parking spaces in your building are fit for use

Do we have to put up with a parking space that is difficult to park in?

Normally,  when you buy a flat with a parking space while the building is still under construction, buyers have no idea what the space they have actually bought is like. Below we provide a brief summary so that you do not have to settle for whatever you are given:

1. Owner-drivers cannot be required to have special gifts or skills to get their vehicles into the space; it is enough that they are average drivers, and there is no need for them to qualify as experts.
2. The fact that the parking spaces have obtained the relevant administrative licences is irrelevant, because the granting of a licence (which has merely administrative effects) does not presuppose that a parking space is fit for use.
3. They are never bought “as a specific, defined item” (a cuerpo cierto), since off-plan purchases cannot be given that character: the spaces are not really seen until they have been built and are used.
4. Whether or not the spaces are usable is proved at trial, through a judicial inspection or an expert test recorded on video and carried out by an expert driver (a driving instructor).
5. Naturally, the spaces would also be measured and described, stating their width and length, whether there is a wall on one side or on both, and/or whether or not they comply with regulations, or even whether there are columns along their outer sides that reduce the usable width of the space.

The legal concept of a parking space is not merely the existence of a space in which to park, but also being able to park comfortably, without awkward manoeuvres back and forth, as well as having suitable access to the premises. A space must always be understood as having to be suitable for mid-sized cars, and not just small cars. If this is not the case, the buyer is left dissatisfied and frustrated, because the item delivered is entirely unfit for the use for which it was intended; it is useless, to the point of frustrating the purpose of the contract and making it impossible to use. It is “irrelevant” whether the car park complies with administrative planning regulations, since the point is not to check or review that legality (which changes from one period and one locality to another); what matters is whether the space is fit for its proper purpose. Although, clearly, if it already fails to comply with regulations, that will indicate its unfitness. What is needed is to establish that the problem is serious enough to prevent normal use of the space for its purpose, and that using the space does not become seriously irritating or troublesome, in terms of both its dimensions and its access; to establish or verify its uselessness and inconvenience, it must be used repeatedly so that the degree of difficulty or hardship can be assessed. Since proper performance of the contract is impossible (there are columns, walls, etc.) and these cannot be repaired, the claim should be for compensation equivalent to the cost of buying another parking space as close as possible to the original one, plus an additional sum for the inconvenience this involves,  because buying another parking space in a building, even one close to the building where the home is, causes the disruption and inconvenience that the extra distance entails (a further 10% of the value of the space).