There has been lots of trouble with the squatters. The young couple with children that moved in and replaced the previous squatters in the squatter apartment in Bloque 6, were violent. The Police took initiative to a court case of domestic violence (“Violencia de Género”) between the squatters. The property owner next door was asked to a witness in court. The young squatter woman withdrew the case meanwhile the property owner next door was sitting waiting to be called in to the court room.
Thereafter, the squatter woman, filed a police report (“Denuncia”) against the property owner who had come to the court as a witness. The case against the property owner next door follow the same pattern and was withdrawn just when the session was supposed to begin in court.
It is the squatter woman who lived in the squatter flat in Bloque 6 (1D) that filed a police report (“Denuncia”) against the property owner next door. The squatter woamn accused the property owner of having insulted her daily for six months. On 24 August 2019 the squatter accused the property owner of staring at her and provoking her and that the property owner gave her a shove with the shoulder causing damage but no injury, which the squatter says made her call the Police.
The property owner's version is very different. According to her it was the squatter woman that insulted and threatened her when she was inside the area of the upper swimming pool, when the squatter woman was at the other side of the fence outside on the path. The day time security man was nearby and the property owner went with him to the reception where they called the Police. When the Police arrived they all went to the property owner's apartment, which can be seen on the security cameras that are installed in property owners apartment.
It's difficult to defend oneself against false accusation and require lots of work and effort. It's much easier to prove what is true then what is false. The property owner tried to collect as much relevant evidences as possible to have as strong case as possible.
Previous altercation created by the squatter woman
The squatter woman had already been threatening people by the lower swimming pool on 18 May 2019 and calling every one “sinvergüenzas”, “bajunos”, “os voy a ahogar a todos”. The next door property owner was among the group by the swimming pool too and the squatter woman went on to threaten her directly by saying: “te voy a rajar”, “te voy a cortar el pescuezo, “cerda”, “guarra”, “hija de puta”, “metiendote en la vida de los demas”, “vas a terminar en la carcel”, “la policia te va allevar a ti”. The Police were called. Policia National arrived and took the name and phone number of the next door property owner and told her to call immediately if the squatter woman would threaten her again.
Domestic violence
The Police went to the squatter flat on many occasions. On 10 May 2019 the Police arrived and could see the face of the squatter woman was swollen and that she also was bleeding after being beaten up. They told her that the domestic violence had to come towards an end and persuaded her to put a “Denuncia” against her partner and the father of her children. Her partner was arrested by the Police. The Police got in touch with the property owner next door, who is the same person that the squatter woman later on has put the “Denucia” against, to be a witness in the court the following day.
The property owner next door went to the court as a witness, but it was wasted time, because the squatter woman withdrew the case just before the session was supposed to begin in court. It seems that this squatter woman frequently withdraws cases just before the court session is about to begin. One can wonder why the court allow her to continue with this behaviour.
These young squatter couple have got a thick file in the court of Domestic Violence (“Violencia de Género”). It is difficult to understand how the authorities can allow their children to grow up in this dysfunctional environment.
Withdrawal of the “Denuncia” in the last minute
The day for the court case the squatter woman withdrew her “Denuncia” just in the moment the court session was about to begin. Apparently, the squatter woman arrived to the court on her own with out anyone to support her story. The court has later on issued a sentence where the property owner is cleared from all accusations.
The proofs the next door property owner has collected show that it's rather the squatter family that has created lots of problems within the community and especially for the living near the squatter apartment. The squatters have been violent and disturbing people day and night. On many occasions the squatter woman has run out outside the squatter apartment shouting “Maltrato, llama a la policia por favor” after she's been beaten up by her partner and the father of her two children.
Lack of support from the Secretary-Administrator
As already mentioned, it is difficult to defend oneself against false accusations. One could assume that the Secretary-Administrator of the community should have been willing to provide with all needed information to help the property owner against the squatter, but it doesn't seem to have been the case.
The security men that work at the community writes incident reports and it's not difficult to understand that those report written by the security men can be vital to be use in the defence against false accusations. The property owner needed to get access to the reports of the security men from the time the squatter woman moved into the squatter apartment in Bloque 6 (1-D) to be able to show all the trouble these squatters have caused people living nearby, since the accusations the squatter woman made against the property owner in her “Denuncia” covered a time period of six months.
Furthermore, the daytime security man that worked at the community on 24 August 2019 was a witness to what happened on that day, but didn't want to provide with his contact details to the property owner, just his name.
One could think that it should have been normal for the Secretary-Administrator to provide with those reports of the security men where troubles with the squatters are mentioned, as well as providing with contact details of the daytime security man, for the property owner to have the strongest possible defence.
The property owner informed the Secretary-Administrator in person in his office on 18 September 2019 that squatter in the next door flat had filed a police report (“Denuncia”) against her. The Secretary-Administrator seemed to be unawarethat of the squatters had created lots of trouble within the community and the fact that this squatter already had been threatening people by the lower swimming pool on 18 May 2019.
The assistant of the Secretary-Administrator was aware of the trouble that this squatter woman had created on 18 May 2019 and informed that she had received emails from other property owners where they explained what had happened. The property owner expressed interest in getting copies of those replies to be used in her defence to show that the squatter woman also had behaved badly to other people within the community. The assistant of the Secretary-Administrator said that the emails from the other property owners could not be disclosed due to Data Protection. The property owner informed that the personal data on those emails could be masked, since it was what the others had written – not their names – that was of use for her defence.
The property owner informed that the Police had come many times to the squatter flat and believed there must be quite a few reports of the security men showing the trouble the squatters has created within the community. These reports were requested by the property owner to be used in her defence.
She also informed that the daytime security man was a witness of what happened on 24 August 2019 and that she therefore was in need of his contact details for the court to be able to request him as a witness.
The Secretary-Administrator changed his mind
Instead of sending the reports of the security men, masked replies from the other property owners and contact details of the daytime security man, The assistant of the Secretary-Administrator sent an email on 19 September 2019 where a report from Malaca was attached. The report written by Malaca showed the incidents with the squatter family only from July 2019 onwards, when Malaca replaced the previous security company Caservis that the community all of a sudden decided to get rid off in July 2019.
The problem with the squatters in the squatter apartment in Bloque 6 (1-D) begun when the squatters went into the apartment in January 2018. The trouble with the squatter woman, who made the “Denuncia” against the property owner, started immediately after they got into the squatter apartment in January 2019 and replace the previous squatters.
Since the accusations were for a period of six months before the squatter woman made her “Denuncia” on 24 August 2019, then it was not sufficient with a document showing problems with the squatter woman and her family for one month. The property owner immediately replied to the email from the Administration and pointed out that copies of the reports of the security man were needed from the beginning of the year when the squatter woman begun to live in the squatter apartment.
The assistant of the Secretary-Administrator sent an email on 31 May 2019 regarding the trouble the squatter woman created on 18 May 2019, giving an impression it was sent to all property owners. Therefore, the property owner also communicated in her reply to the email of the Administration that she wanted copies of those replies the Administration had received.
Since it was an urgent matter and the Administration had not replied, the property owner went to the office of the Secretary-Administrator on 4 October 2019 to hand in the email on paper. The property owner brought two copies of each e-mail, one for the Administration and one to be signed and returned to the property owner as a receiving confirmation. The staff by the reception desk at the Administration refused to sign the receiving confirmations on the copy. They told the property owner to come back later, because the Secretary-Administrator was busy in a meeting. Since it was of urgent matter, the property owner informed the personnel in the office that she then would have to send it by Buro Fax instead.
Reply from the Secretary-Administrator
The Secretary-Administrator quickly sent an e-mail within hours, before the property owner had an opportunity to send a Buro Fax. The reply stands out as sarcastic and to put the property owner in bad light.
The Secretary-Administrator implies that the property owner has intimidate his employees and writes that his staff is not authorized to handle documents given in to the Administration.
. . . intimidate the employees of my office into stamping any document by force, because they are not authorized to do so and they will not do it. (. . . intimidar a las empleadas de mi oficina para que le selle ningún documento a la fuerza, pues no están autorizadas para hacerlo y no lo van a hacer.)
The property owner do not trust the Secretary-Administrator and the members of his staff and therefore recorded the visit. One cannot hear that the staff was intimidated by the property owner. What one can hear is that the staff at the Administration were unwilling to receive the paper documents and provide with a receiving confirmation, which is common practice when handing in document to authorities, etc.
Furthermore the Administrator writes that the reports of the security man will not be disclosed, which he did not express during the previous meeting on 18 September 2019 when the question was discussed.
. . . the security company, we have sent you the document that they have sent to us, if it is not of your interest or of your liking, please let us know to the same security company that you, as co-owner of the community of owners, can ask the favour of sending them what you consider appropriate as a defense of the court that you claim to have. (. . . la compañía de seguridad, le hemos enviado el documento que estos nos han enviado a nosotros, sino es de su interés o de su gusto le ruego se lo haga saber a la misma empresa de seguridad a los que usted, como copropietaria de la comunidad de propietarios, puede pedirle el favor de que les haga llegar lo que usted estime conveniente como defensa del juicio que dice tener.)
As already mentioned, the community changed security company in July 2019 and could therefore not include anything of what happened before in their document. The security men do write incident reports and its the duty of the Secretary to keep documents of the community. It is therefore odd when the Secretary-Administrator tells the property owner to get in touch with the security company herself, without even providing with their contact details.
Secretary-Administrator was not going to be of any help to be able to call the daytime security man as a witness either, which he did not express during the previous meeting on 18 September 2019 when the question was discussed.
If you need [B's] data, you only have to ask him or the company for which he works, from the administration, we repeat again, that these are data that are protected under the current Data Protection Law and therefore we can not get it. (si necesita usted los datos del Sr. [B] solo tiene que pedírselo a él o a la empresa para la que el trabaja, desde la administración, le volvemos a repetir, que son datos que están amparados bajo la actual Ley de Protección de Datos y que por tanto no podemos hacerle llegar.)
That personal data cannot be disclosed in this situation seem to be based on a misinterpretation of the European Union Data Protection Directive to avoid transparency. It is odd when the Secretary-Administrator tells the property owner to get in touch with the security company herself, without even providing with their contact details to be accessed and use as witnesses in court in criminal court cases.
What's the point for the community to pay for security men, if they cannot be accessed and use as witnesses in court in criminal cases?
The Secratary-Administrator refused to hand out copies of the email correspondence between the Administration and other property owners regarding trouble with the squatter woman referring to Data Protection.
Regarding the sending of comments from the neighbours, I repeat, as I let you know in the meeting in my office, that the current Data Protection Law prohibits us from sending anyone. I have no doubt that with the good relationship that you have with the rest of your neighbours, you will be able to get this documentation directly from them. (en relación al envío de los cometarios del los vecinos, le repito, al igual que le hice saber en la reunión en mi oficina, que la actual Ley de Protección de Datos nos prohíbe enviar a nadie. No me cabe la menor duda de que con la buena relación que usted tiene con el resto de sus vecinos, podrá conseguir esta documentación directamente de ellos mismos.)
The issue of Data Protection was only mentioned when the assistant of the Secretary-Administator said that the they could not disclose any copies of the replies the Administration might have received form property owners in correspondence with the e-mail the Administration sent to property owners on 31 May 2019. The property owner told them that the personal data was of no relevance for her defence and that it could be masked before they were handed out, which is a common practice.
Is the following sentence a sarcastic and evil remark of the Secretary-Administrator?
I have no doubt that with the good relationship that you have with the rest of your neighbours, you will be able to get this documentation directly from them. (No me cabe la menor duda de que con la buena relación que usted tiene con el resto de sus vecinos, podrá conseguir esta documentación directamente de ellos mismos.)
How can a property owner possible know which other property owners that have sent e-mails to the Administration regarding the unpleasant behaviour of the squatters?
Another property owner's e-mail to the President and the Administration
Despite the lack of support from the Secretary-Administrator, the property owner found out that one property owner who had sent an e-mail to the Administration about how the squatter woman was misbehaving and threatening people by the swimming pool on 18 May 2019 and got a copy of that email.
It shows that the e-mail was sent on 30 May 2019, which is a day before the Administration send its e-mail on 31 May 2019 to the property owners about the trouble created by the squatter woman on 18 May 2019.
It is interesting to see that this property owner, who also is a member of the Governing Board of the community (“Junta Directiva”), requested an urgent meeting regarding the trouble the squatters created. The e-mail was sent to both the President of the Community and the assistant of the Secretary-Administrator.
There is no information available showing that the requested meeting ever was held.
It seems like the email from the Administration on 31 May 2019 might never have been sent to anyone else then the property owner next door that have suffered badly from the squatters. If this is the case then the email the assistant of the Secretary-Administrator sent to the property owner next door to the squatters might just have been a retrospective way to cover up the short comings of the Administration. It then makes sense that the Secretary-Administrator do not want to disclose the the correspondence, since it would disclose the truth.
Regardless what reasons the Secretary-Administrator has had to act in the way he has done, he has indirectly supported the squatters instead of the affected property owner.
Sources:
- Sentencia (Núm 181/19) Juzgado de Instrucción No 4 de Marbella
- Diligenscias urgente (Núm 162/19) Juzgado de Violencia de Género de Marbella
- Delitos leves (Núm 78/2018) Juzgado de Instrucción No 1 de Marbella
Legislation:
Facts:
- Unacceptable behaviour
- violenciagenero.igualdad.gob.es - Delegación del Gobierno contra la Violencia de Género
Related articles:
More related articles at: