Claiming manoeuvres in parking spaces

According to established case law, a certain severity is sufficient to prevent the normal enjoyment of the thing in accordance with the same or that the use becomes seriously irritating or annoying, and should be considered as essential the adequacy that the parking spaces must have with respect to the purpose for which they are intended, adequacy that reaches both the dimensions and the accesses to them;

And it must be admitted that the finding of such inadequacy, with such scope, requires more than a mere visual examination of the parking space, being necessary its effective and repeated use to verify the degree of difficulty or hardship that makes the object of the contract definitively unfit for use;

Can I claim that I have to do too many manoeuvres to make a claim?

Yes, although parking a car in a parking space does not necessarily have to be done “straight away” without any manoeuvres, as this may be logical due to the configuration of the basement, the arrangement of other parking spaces etc., what cannot be tolerated is that in order to park a car it is necessary to carry out a number of complicated manoeuvres; We could understand that performing more than three manoeuvres, is already an irritating and annoying use as the judges say, if this is your case, contact us;

Parking manoeuvring responsibilities in the garage

In order to determine who is responsible for the inadequacy of the parking spaces, an expert who specialises in claiming parking spaces must determine this by carrying out certain tests and measurements on which he bases his expert’s report; The responsible for the bad adaptation of these parking spaces can be the designer who has designed them and placed them in the project in an incorrect way, the builder or the construction management for not having executed them as stated in the project or the promoter as the last responsible person who is ultimately liable as the seller, for having sold something unfit for the purpose for which it was intended;

According to Article 10.2 (b), the project should have been drawn up in accordance with the regulations in force, and if not complied with, it should have been corrected during execution;

Furthermore, according to Article 12.3 paragraphs c) and d) in any case, they should have warned of the non-compliance or inability of the site in the execution of the work, as it was their duty:

c) Resolve the contingencies that occur on site and record in the Book of Orders and Assistance the precise instructions for the correct interpretation of the project;

d) Draw up, at the request of the promoter or with his agreement, any modifications to the project, which may be required by the progress of the work, provided that they are adapted to the regulatory provisions contemplated and observed in the drafting of the project;