Introduction

From the beginning of their involvement we have been confronted with manipulation. The bad boys Renaldo Delabie and Vital (we) were actual the architects of the board change. We were the Natural leaders that stood up and performed the revolution. The current President and his team have actually deceived us and took over position of the Natural leaders by manipulation and deception.  The Comunidad was locked in a non active President that was hiding behind a Gestor/adminstrador who was not in touch. We patiently assembled a team and talked for more than a year with the Gestor and Monique the President. At a certain time Renaldo Delabie was asked by the Administrador and Monique to become President. But there was another candidate proposed by the Townhall : Antonio Garre, the current President . During months before his nomination he current President has been selling himself to us by agreeing of course with absolutely everything. In the end we were overwhelmed by his motivation that we accepted. Being President here is not a popular activity. The same thing with his current advisor, Daniel Dekker. He strongly defended the Comunidad idea because he considered it stronger. He said :”as soon something will have to be paid the members all fly away”.  So the manipulation was done so well that the second we were appointed we were ignored and the dissolvers started to have their own meetings. So we lived it from close and trust me, those people cannot be trusted. The way they have manipulated the General Meetings, the proxy collection, the arguments (scare as much as possible) and cooking the voting process even by adding votes in a second General Meeting to get it their way by all means. The Suspension decision by the Court is also a matter of trust or rather no trust, Does the judge trust the team in power while the real merits are going to be debated? Well no, the judge was appalled by the lack of conformity to regulations to force decision and by the very generic formulation of the decisions so that maximum freedom was provided to force things in the field later on . The whole set up and texts cannot hide the manipulation intention in such a way that this trust was not granted. Those people that cannot be trusted want to become our undisputed leader for as long as they want it. They want to dissolve the Comunidad and manage us through the Associacion de Vecinos (that was always called the Associacion the morosos, The Associacion of the debters or non-payers). We cannot leave our destiny in their hands. The last mail they have sent and commented below contains 18 lies, so the manipulation goes on.

Please find my comments in the text below in red.

Dear owners:

Given the importance of this communication - which will also be sent by post ( suddenly they discovered the post, why not for the Sumons/Callings) to those who do not have email - I ask you to read it carefully.

Approximately one year ago (on 25 May 2022), the current Board of Directors of the Community

of Owners Urbanización de Foya Blanca was appointed by the General Assembly of owners and

I was appointed President. Although at the beginning the Board of Directors consisted of the Vice Presidents Juan Francisco Tortosa, Hege Tomassen, Daniel Dekker, Vital Delneste, Renaldo Delabie and myself as President, we lived a complicated summer of 2022, and before  the Extraordinary General Assembly on the 16th of September (we didn’t see each other until 30th of August, that is very complicated yes. On this meeting we agreed on 3 options to put in the Agenda : 1. continue as before, 2. dissolve or 3. a low cost comunidad with large improvements, our Comunidad 2.0),  two sides were clearly marked due to internal discrepancies about the way in which the Community of Owners should be run. On the one side are Juan Francisco, Hege Tomassen, Daniel Dekker and myself, Antonio Garre, and on the other side is a minority side composed of Vital Delneste and Renaldo Delabie ( at the meeting before 16th September General Meeting there was not even a majority expressed for dissolution, but that was all manipulation of course. Anyway would everybody have been honest it remains to be said that  for simple  management decisions a majority is sufficient,  but for structural decisions like selling parts of the Comunidad or dissolving the Comunidad unanimity of all the owners is required, and for good reason. The law protects even a minority of 1 owner against abuse regarding fundamental impact decisions. This prevents us for example to sacrify one owner to solve everybody’s problem. That one minority person can prevent that. So by forcing an unanimity decision  in the General Meeting for which there was not even unanimity/consensus in the board they started a war. They started a war and have to take all the operational and financial consequences for it. The board was elected based on enhancing the Comunidad not based on dissolving. The proof of that is we still have the version we all approved of the General Meeting calling of 16 september with an agenda containing option 3 the hybrid version, a different comunidad now called Comunidad 2.0. This has been changed overnight behind our backs.

It is precisely from this minority side ( Erratum nr 1: there was not a majority of dissolvers expressed in the board meeting of 30 august preceeding the sending out of the Calling on 1th September, the President clearly said “I still don’t know what to choose, Comunidad or not”, He also said, “they will anyway decide whatever we tell them to decide”) whole series of actions are being carried out to defame, undermine, block, create hoaxes ( it is Renaldo and Vital who are under attack using the monopoly of the large group of emails.) and devalue our work (everything that is done by the President is in function of dissolving the Comunidad as agreed with the townhall).

I would like to remind you that as soon as we were appointed as members of the Board of

Directors, the people on the side of the Board of Directors that I represent carried out a legal ( it was a reversed analysis about were to look to try to support a dissolution decision)

and accounting review ( Erratum nr2 : just the debts where analysed and nothing that can be qualified as Accounting audit. As a Business Management professional and a ex-board member at Arthur Andersen Belgium (Currently also Treasurer of Lions club Alfas)  Renaldo  has proposed to perform the Accounting audit. This offer was ignored and the Accounting audit has not been done. Nobody else of the team is qualified to perform such an audit anyway. The result of an accounting review should result in confirming or rejecting accounting postings and resulting account balances; nothing of that sort has been confirmed nor rejected. Anyway lie or not it is irrelevant in the dissolution discussion) of the documentation of the urbanisation that was in the possession of the former property administrator and which ended, as I have already mentioned, in the presentation of his resignation, leaving ( make him resign by harassing him publicly and calling him thieve publicly, very strange considering they say they performed an accounting audit with no defects reported) the Community of Owners without a secretary/property administrator. ( upon which the President received the full documentation and all the Private Data sealed with signing a document for good reception and taking ownership according to the Private Data laws, this document is in our possession)

In view of the above, the Board of Directors called a General Assembly of owners, which took

place on 16 September, at which, among other resolutions, it was agreed by majority vote: (i) to

appoint Juan Francisco Tortosa as secretary (Erratum nr 3 : he was appointed Secretary by the President later on but not based on the votes. The reason why the full secretary function is been suspended  by the judge is exactly because it is clear  without going into the content that the legal double ,quota and assistentes, majority rule imposed by law was not even applied, again it is already clear by cheer formality check that at least one of the majorities was won by Renaldo by far ); (ii) to claim the debt from the defaulting owners only in respect of the last five annual payments, writing off the previous ones; (iii) to authorise the Board of Directors to negotiate out of court with the defaulting owners to pay their debt, being able to reduce it by up to a maximum of 50% , thus avoiding the costs of having to claim the debt judicially, and finally ( this is not what has been applied in the debt lists where all debt older than 5 years even when correctly and officially in legal collection procedure was cut, all charges and interests cut and by default the 50% was applied and not the negotiation maximum but the negotiation minimum ; (iv) it was agreed to proceed with the dismissal of the gardening. ( the reason why this has been suspended is that even the judge did not understand what we really voted for because the decision description was so vague that it could be anything. It was not saying on what grounds, what it would cost, nor when and how the transition would be handled, meaning it was a virtual and illegal decision. In reality, behind our backs so to speak, the dismissal has been executed for objective reasons with a minimum compensation, not what was voted for. I personally had Martin on my driveway crying out: “me han hechado con un perro”, they ousted me like a dog and falling on his knees crying, ) worker who had been employed since 1995 for multiple objective reasons which we have already explained on many occasions, and which can be summarised in the fact that all the communal areas such as the green area, the tennis court, etc., are public property and it is forbidden by municipal ordinances to do any kind of gardening or maintenance in these areas. (The Townhall has been our enemy, since 1995 particularly, and now again they were showing it why They have let the Green zone  degrade to become the dirtiest and ugliest dilapidated dump of the whole of Alfas del Pi but they did an effort, the effort was to generate a communal ordinance to prohibit us to clean it ourselves. Even worse, till 2005 (more or less) we had an agreement with a finca farmer close by to perform a win/win. The farmer would perform the maintenance of nice clean rows of well kept orange trees and on the other side of the deal he could keep the oranges. Perfect solution. Not for the Townhall, not destructive enough apparently. I think I know why: they’ve let the orange trees die gradually with the ugly view as a bonus and so they could replace them by those phantom zombie trees for which we were told the Townhall gets subsidies. We see the same trees on other plots of the Municipal too. And on the bare parts they are still open to any initiative being proposed by anybody with a good plan de viabilidad, including the Camper Park we have been contacted for and that we successfully pushed away )

Subsequently, on 25 November, we convened a new residents' meeting at which: (i) the resolutions adopted at the General Meeting of 16 September were ratified; (why did we have to ratify previous meeting? The dissolution agenda point of the previous meeting that was not handled had to be taken over but for the rest? One reason they expressed in the meeting. “we have to ratify the previous meeting because it is all scrutinized by legal council and as can be heard in the recording of the meeting that was send to us :  they needed to ratify to correct the errors of the previous Meeting because they realized we were going to sue)  (ii) it was reported that the dismissal of Martín had already been notified to him; (iii) it was proposed as an alternative to the Community of Property Owners to form a voluntary residents' association ( this idea is already dead apparently, nothing prevents them to already be active with it. We see now a postbox called Vecinos organizados, another association apparently)

, and; (iv) the Board of Directors was authorised to carry out administrative actions for the orderly dissolution of the Community of Property Owners, as there were no longer any common services (Erratum nr 4: there are still common services and even goods, and even without any common services and goods in a distant future a common interest is still sufficient. To dissolve legally you need the agreement of all owners says $1 art 23b of the Horizontal Property Law or you need to prove in court there is not an atom nor a service-like thing in common. Even debt from owners qualify.  We are far from there. This dissolution strategy is inspired from the arrest of Alicante confirming the Comunidad and its claims on collecting the quotas of the costs from the owners. It lists a whole number of elements mainly related to the gardener and its activities, what is overlooked though is that the arrest clearly mentions “by example” and not exhaustive before enumerating, so one can really question the logic of crossing of a list that is by definition not exhaustive. Like many wars this one is also started based on misinformation. ) . That is to say, authorising the Board of Directors to carry out actions tending to terminate any contract or service directly linked to the hiring of Martín, the gardener. All these decisions have been challenged in court by Renaldo Delabie and Vital Delneste. (the decision to nullify the meeting of 16th of September was the logical result of us experiencing this meeting like a terrorist attack. Most non-dissolution people present are still shocked and a family lawyer present stopped all involvement immediately after being called a liar loud and clear. After 2 meetings with a group of shocked people I was pressed to go for nullification. We made minutes and they were send to all present with that decision in it) These owners have filed up to three ( Renaldo had started the lawsuit before the Calling of 25th of November meeting. Because of the ratification Vital started his after the 25th for both meetings. Since the 16th sept was ratified on the 25th November Meeting, Renaldo had no other choice than to sue again for the combination of 16/9 and 25/11. They were maybe hoping we wouldn’t have funds for it anymore. Don’t cry openly to get only 3 rockets back if you attack with 2 rockets yourself. They were hoping by repeating the same decisions again  we would not be able to stop anything but we were not fooled by this trick and our Lawyers are very experienced and are appalled by this ruthless manipulation which is apparently motivating them personally  to stop it. Same thing might happen with the coming General Meeting. Anyway all 3 and maybe the 4th, 5th etc.. will be accumulated in to the same chamber 4 with the same judge.) Lawsuits against the Community of Owners with the aim of having a judge annul the adopted agreements, so that these agreements are rendered null and void, which would mean, if the courts were to rule in their favor:

1. That Juan Francisco Tortosa ceases to be the secretary of the Community, so that a new

Assembly would have to be called to re-elect a secretary, or failing that, to hire a new

Property Administrator. (it is not a great loss. We fear the worst accounting-wise. We haven’t seen any financial report since December 2021 while we were having a balance total of €98.473.52 euro. This is being reduced to nothing under control of a musician. It’s about time somebody knowledgeable is looking at it)

2. Martin's reinstatement to his job, so, according to Spanish labour laws, he would have to be paid for the months he has not been working (Erratum nr 5 : the current resolution mentions to pay only the hours that were performed), plus interest. In other words, he would have to be paid for the months since he was dismissed (November 2022) until he would be reinstated and these months would count as seniority in the event that the Community of Owners approved a new dismissal. However, Martin would then have torepay the compensation of approximately €18,000 that the Community of Owners paid him at the time of his dismissal in November 2022.( This is were the reality will kick in. One can not ruthlessly challenge the law on the one side and make the Owners pay for the damage later on. No no, I swear that there will be no expense saved on our side to make the responsible of this mess pay personally out of his pocket. Being a President is not a narcistic game; it is taking care for the money of others. If somebody is  playing with the money of others to fulfil he’s own personal agenda then he has to take the consequences.  He has to realise the legal risk he was taking by firing outside the framework of the General Meeting decisions. It the President makes big errors it is up to him to pay not up to us. His all-knowing legal advisor has created a big problem for the President that is already a fact)

3. Furthermore, if a judge were to rule in favor (of the law) of Renaldo and Vital, the debt of the

defaulting owners would not be limited solely and exclusively to the last five financial years, but to the total of approximately €80,000.00 , which was reflected in the General Assembly of Neighbours of 16 September 2022

(This is proof of a manipulation approach. The Lawyer who wrote this knows very well that every decision is going to be debated and judged on its legality separately. For the moment the suspension is only applied to 3 of the 6 or so decisions taken. So if the court decides effectively to cancel this decision it will be because this decision is illegal. We are honest people (at least we) that do not want to do illegal things. So if it is illegal it is best to know it as soon as possible. And it is good that the application of the decision is suspended so minimal illegality should take place.)

4. Finally, the out-of-court agreements reached by the Board of Directors with defaulting

owners who agreed to partially pay their debt from 16 September 2022 onwards would

also be rendered ineffective. Thus, these owners, despite having partially paid their debt,

would continue to have no voting rights.

The three lawsuits filed by the legal representation of Renaldo and Vital are based solely and

exclusively on formal defects (Erratum nr 6 : The suspension decisions are of course outside the merits of the case and related to obvious formal defects but by content, the cases are very fundamental. Not applying the double majority rule to voting the secretary is something 4 Lawyers have seen within seconds when they read the Minutes. Actually nothing about the voting process was right, which is very fundamental. And if the automatic granting of 50% after stripping the amount already by a large percentage is legal, which we know it isn’t, all people that paid 100% all those years should  be refunded 50% too. We will not trust anybody who thinks that  transgressing a rule or a law has to be seen as a formal defect. No trust. )  such as, for example, the failure to send the summons by registered mail when the previous Property Manager sent all communications by ordinary or electronic mail for years. ( Again the FOR EXAMPLE  is very important. It is indeed one of the defects. But on he 30th March when the Suspension was debated in court it was the only element that was not mentioned in the hearing though. It is strange for example that most Belgians were not receiving the summons while the email address are in the database, same thing with many Norwegians. This rule of proving you at least tried to reach all is to make sure there is no selective invitation to influence the outcome of the voting. Since the president  has received all the addresses and emails  and signed off the reception of it, nothing could refrain them from doing exactly the same as the gestor did for years without a single complaint. When we discussed this matter with the Gestor he said literally “They are like kids playing with matches”.)

The current Board of Directors, and myself as President, did a lot of field work going house to

house updating personal information because we found owners who were not even in the

database of owners, who had bought the house years ago and nobody had told them anything.

We made hundreds of photocopies, and we spent many hours in an altruistic way, personally

assuming, apart from the Community of Owners, many of the expenses such as paying for the

petrol for the gardener's van, even the mailings of all the meetings, and the hundreds of

photocopies that have been made, even putting posters in the streets, in the post boxes, as well

as on the notice board of the Community. Not to mention the exercise of transparency (Erratum nr 7: transparency and marketing are not the same thing. We have no idea what happened to the 98.473.52 on the passive side and active side since 31 december 2021. How transparent is that?  Most of the new names after the 16th of September on the proxy list in favor of the president are people that have disappeared from the debtor’s list. So without denunciating anything there are logically 2 ways to look at this. They paid so they could vote or the proxy was part of the negotiation. Logically there should be like a 50/50 distribution of those names. No  all those names went towards the President. This is not an accusation but  we let everybody make his own conclusions. So before real accusations are going to start based on testimony it is better to be more transparent. It is not defamation it simply is our job to detect those signals and ask questions about it.)

have carried out to date, translating all communications and minutes into different languages.( all with the final objective to dissolve in line with some private agenda)

Therefore, I would like to highlight the fact that Renaldo and Vital, despite being in partial

agreement with the content of some of the adopted agreements, and being able to file a single

lawsuit (we are 2 different persons having our own priorities, Renaldo ordered to sue before the 25th based on a group decision, the ratification trick forced  Renaldo to sue again. Thanks to this group meeting together we avoided to have 15 or so law cases instead of one) annul both the agreements of 16 September and 25 November, have filed three lawsuits, making the costs that the Community of Owners will have to assume in order to defend themselves much more expensive. We estimate that the cost in professional fees for external lawyers, solicitors, experts, etc. for the Community to be able to defend itself against the three lawsuits filed amounts to approximately 15.000,00.-€. (Erratum nr 8 : first of all since the President is making personal errors by forcing ruthlessly a dissolution, there is no reason why the Community should pay for this very risky attitude. Secondly as could be seen at the hearings concerning the suspension we could recognize the text of Daniel being read by a stand in lawyer. So only the stand in time has to be paid. Additionally as explained above, 3 lawsuits are needed to cope with the repeating trick and ratification chain initiated by the President. If they try to trick us out they have to take the consequences of the additional complexity of suing it that way.. We should not pay for this. All three cases and the next ones are going to be accumulated in the 4rd chamber with the same judge any way. Additionally there are 2 cases that the Syndicate/Union of Martin has filed according to his information, we think this €15.000 estimate is at least reflecting also this other cost. It is not mentioned because it is well too obvious that it  is caused by the illegal firing and so caused by their own inadvertence. But there is no difference with the other cases, they are also based on their inadvertence and reckless way of operating)

It is clear that as was to be foreseen with this dissolution method of forcing everything is creating a total mess. The good thing is that now we see the real power of this group and their free assosacion de vecinos, This power is zero. They can only channel to us the flow of power of the Townhall. But the Townhall is not our friend. We are milking cows for them that they even don’t need to feed. We cannot punish by voting against but we pay the maximum IBI/real estate tax that includes swimming pool and tennis. We honestly would have preferred to sue the Townhall instead of the President but this had to be done.

If we would be in power sure as hell we would sue the Townhall. We’ll organise a class action for all the damage the Townhall has done to us. It is an absolute shame to acquire the green zone and the streets with their power and later unlawfully inciting the owners not pay any contributions, not to fulfil most of its responsibilities in terms of normative updates and  to close the pool to push the first domino and than asks some pawns to get  in control of the Comunidad ...to close down the shop. They should  pay for this, what else? Is has been enough.)

And all this, without counting the time that the current Board of Directors has to dedicate, on a personal basis, to manage the defence of the Community in these proceedings. ( Renaldo and Vital are paying this out of their own pockets without asking anybody to contribute just to save Foya Blanca from sure permanent degradation. We help the whole community because our thorough understanding of the Foya Blanca situation and our experience of 28 years with the defecting Townhall has brought us to the clear insight that Dissolving would cost us all at least 10% of the property value and according to real estate specialists probably 25%. Why ? Well because dissolution would place 1. the control over the quality of Foya Blanca at jeopardy and 2. the certainty of viability of the housing also at jeopardy because the sewage problems become unmanageable, in it’s urgency, in a dissolved situation. The properties become equivalent to non serviced plots by losing the control over  its infrastructure connections. All the connections passing through a neighbour are to be considered at risk. No right of passage can solve an urgent matter as being inundated by sewage waste.  Common private plot infrastructure parts that are now legally safely kept together in the Community will be ripped apart legally. As long as the Townhall doesn’t fulfil its promises and its legal obligation since 95 to put it all the pipes in the streets we need to stay in this co-property modus to efficiently manage the transition and cope with the intermediate problems in the best way possible. The infrastructure works were now promised by January for 2 half streets (Violeta and Saule) of the 22 streets but our guess it might be in 2030 at best and maybe 10 years later for all the streets)

Renaldo Delabie and Vital Delneste intend to opt for a model in which it is the Community of

Owners who, through an agreement (Erratum nr 9 :  a ridiculous lie. We defend a Comunidad 2.0 where nothing changes the private/public situation of the assets. We need a Service contract ideally to handle correctly the many sewage system incidents. By claiming they fully own the whole sewage system physically including the common pipes that run through the foundations of the houses wall to wall, they create a legal vacuum because in reality they never took responsibility factually speaking. They never paid a dime for those incidents with common conducts going almost entirely through private properties (by design). The explanation is given below. It is true we intend to sue the Townhall for the long list of defects and non conformity to Spanish and European standards. We have the only streets in  a Residential area with nothing in it since 28 years but instead of being red with shame they don’t stop pestering us). with the Town Hall would be responsible for assuming a series of expenses relating to assets which are legally the property of the Town Hall (Erratum nr 10: We talked about a Service contract and there is no agreement proposed to take the cost on ourselves. The agreement, see further, is to solve the legal vacuum. We ask to get rid of this vacuum and to face the real reason why this vacuum exists. The consequence is a better coverage from the owner point of view. Most incidents cost between 1000 and 3000 euro. So there are 2 ways to solve that legal vacuum: 1. We both face the fact that the root cause of the vacuum is that the Townhall has never owned the pipes them despite they are responsible for the Service and the Maintenance by law (same split between responsibility and ownership like the situation with a leased car).2. We fully formalize the complete transfer of the physical ownership together with the responsibility of the service.

For the option 1 the Comunidad has to relieve the individual Owner from the lack of coverage from the Townhall. No point in this option to dream about the support from the Municipal because it never happend and never will happen. A group insurance contract of the Comunidad based on this 1000 to 3000 range (cap of 3000 euro to keep the contract feasible). This still will cost something but is better than the current situation where we are fully exposed to the full amount of damage. All sewage systems in Spain outside the buildings are placed legally under the Competency of the Municipal or other public, so putting the system in the streets is legally the responsibility of the Municipal or Public. The tricky part to understand for people who really want to understand is that the whole main network system that by design is put in private property and consists of material plastic tubes, has been put in co-ownership of the Comunidad through the “Tomo the possession” deed in 1980. The same one that gave us the pool and the tennis then.  The tubes, the material ownership has never been transferred out the community since it was placed there in 1980. So the Townhall has never repaired a common tube in 28 years or even paid a repair.

Option 2 is using indeed an agreement that would officially transfer this whole sewage system to the Municipal ( so totally the contrary than what is said) we would clearly link that to a Service Contract with penalties so that they can’t escape their responsibility.

Like now they opportunistically and politically speaking claim full responsibility but won’t do anything because they declare the pipes to be too old and use it as an excuse. If you really own the pipes this can never be an excuse. Owning is owning.

But generally speaking it is important that the Townhall lives up to the norms in the streets and organizes its Competence according to those Spanish and European Norms and standards for streets in residential areas. They are responsible to build a new sewage system that by Design this time will be in the streets and by every law in the book it is up to them to pay for. They will still not touch any tube on our private property, they will deconnect them and  they will stay in the ground for ever but without function. So option  1 and option 2 that both need a Comunidad to function serve as a way to manage the long, probably very long, transition period between now and the end of the completion of the infrastructure works in everyone of the 22 streets of Urbanisacion Foya Blanca. This is one sufficient reason to have a Comunidad but it is not the only reason as discussed in other topics ) , such as the

sewage system of the urbanisation, despite the fact that this may run partially through private

properties, as the Town Hall itself has already acknowledged. They defend a model of "private"

urbanisation, without the intervention of the Town Hall, the cost of which should be borne by all

the Owners. (Erratum nr 11: To make us look bad we are now responsible to attract cost on us we otherwise don’t have or wouldn’t have. The explanation of option 1 and option 2 in dealing with the agreement related lies should make clear that we are not privatising anything. It’s just that the Comunidad was the tool to manage Private Urbanisations and keep it at high quality standard. Now that we are mainly (but not totally) public we should cherish that vehicle to at least keep common control over the big changes and challenges ahead and keeping control over the evolution of the general quality of the Urbanisation by keeping a minimum of own services and the assets we still have)

Well, unfortunately for them, even if the Community of Owners were to continue to exist, their

claims are not legally possible in principle. And they are not possible, insofar as the infrastructure

of our urbanisation was ceded to the Town Hall in 1995 (Erratum nr 12: an apparently  private agreement with Mr Malonda has led to the cession of the land under the streets and the green zone. However what the Townhall fails to admit because Malonda did not fully inform them is that he could not sign for more than what he owned. This messy agreement where apparently no notary has checked previous ownerships etc... can only be made clear, and that to the advantage of the Townhall, by a dissolution it appears. Because that would take out the disturbing part of the equation/contract, the Comunidad. The same Mister Malonda had transferred all the infrastructure that he had constructed with his company into the Comunidad in 1980 (the Tomo the posession) and that included also the swimming pool described in all its technical elements and the shower and sanitary blocks and the tennis all described in detail. The same Malonda person later in 1995 cedes  (a knife against the throat) the land under the streets and the green zone without any details given. So we repeat : when Malonda cedes the green zone to the Townhall he already had ceded the swimming pool and tennis to the Comunidad in 1980 with an official reception by the Comunidad and the Comunidad paying for all its maintenance and upgrades with invoices since. So it’s clear the Townhall simply doesn’t have an unquestionable ownership title of the green zone and all that is on it. But it pretends very well it does and behaves like a very arrogant owner not even taking care of the property. )

Town Hall has been solely responsible for its maintenance and management, which is why all the

residents pay the Property Tax for their properties (by the way our Property Tax includes a Swimming Pool and Tennis as SUMA still respects the Tomo the possession). The Town Hall cannot legally delegate these responsibilities to a Community of Owners ( somebody is hallucinating here why would we ask for that?). In a nutshell, this is the reason for the discussion among board members. (Erratum nr 13: this false reason is completely made up. The highcourt of Alicante has decided that actually the Townhall has nothing to say about the services we organise on top of the Municipal Services. The real reason is that one group has manipulated by Machiavelic means to be able to enter the board on false pretences and have hijacked the board in no time to drastically take the course of dissolution. The resulting distrust has disqualified them for taking any lead position be it an associacion or a Comunidad, in the future.) On the other side, Juan Francisco, Hege Tomassen, Daniel Dekker and myself (Antonio Garre),

want the urbanisation to appear again on the radar of the Town Hall, so that it commits itself to

invest in the improvement of the urbanisation, as we consider that only the Town Hall, with the

money it collects from our taxes, can invest in the improvement of the urbanisation and at the

moment, it is working. In the last few months we have held up to four meetings with the Town

Hall, the results of which you have already seen and will be able to continue to see in a very short

time. ( Foya Blanca with its 205.000 m2 or more than 20 ha is automatically on the radar of the Townhall, it is about the size the seaside Albir. Looking at the fierce battles there have been over the 40 years it is not clear when exactly Foya Blanca has been off the radar in fact. It is clear that the increased possibility of dissolving has excited the Townhall lately and they were willing to send out some signals to give the right impression. One is trying to convince us that once dissolved we would be more on the radar? With a non representative Associacion? If they pretend they have such a good pull on he Townhall so that they will listen to them by godgiven authority why did they not do it in the past. They were here and they already had the Associacion the Vecinos. It is cristal clear that they themselves came onto the radar thanks to the Comunidad, before that they were just nobody for the Townhall, and if they pretend this is not true, well let them use that pull without the Comunidad and leave us alone)

1. In September 2022 we put pressure on the City Council to invest in the aesthetic and

safety improvement of the tennis court, which was very deteriorated, as well as the

adjoining gardens, with the installation of a petanque court.

At the moment, we are negotiating on the current lamentable situation of the swimming

pool and the installation of paddle tennis courts, as well as the execution of public works

for socio-cultural activities in the 20,000 m2 of the green area of the urbanisation.

Actions whose cost has been assumed and in any case, would be assumed directly by

the Town Hall.

(Since 1995 the green zones have been steadily degrading and that is the sole responsibility of the Townhall. The cosmetic changes lately barely change anything.)

2. In November 2022, we lobbied ( Erratum nr 14: before November 2022 they had no idea the Sewage system was a ticking bomb and was actually an issue. We brought up the issue and discussion of the sewage network still being physically owned by the Comunidad and so strengthening the legal position of the Comunidad by stressing that common good and common interest. We brought up the issue of the resulting grey zone or vacuum as discussed above leading to everybody risking to pay and paying for common pipe breakage problems personally. So they went to the Townhall to get a written proof  that the sewage pipes were owned by the Municipal at the same level as if they would have placed them by themselves in their own land. The Townhall has not and will never make such a written statement but has proposed a “better” alternative: promise in an uncertain future to put the pipes ...right by themselves in their own land, in public domain. And there of course there is no discussion. So an investment of millions over many years instead of confirming on paper:  It is called an escape forward) placed the municipality to invest in the renovation of the sewerage system in the urbanisation. The Town Hall agreed and the renovation will be carried out in phases (L'Alfàs is going to renovate the sewerage and water supply network of the Foia Blanca ), with work beginning on the first of these, for a total of approximately 400,000 euros, in June-July of this year (PROY/2/2023 RENOVACIÓN DE

INFRAESTRUCTURAS HIDRÁULICAS EN URBANIZACIÓN FOIA BLANCA- FASE I -

Ayuntamiento de l'Alfàs del Pi | Sede Electrónica (lalfas.es)).

(We all remember that big news. They will use 400K from Hidragua and not their own money to perform the work on 2 half streets: part of Violeta and part of Saule starting 8th January 2023. We are 5 months later. And even if they would have started. Two half street out of the 22 streets in Foya blanca. A good start but not so convincing to strip us naked and dissolve!)

We will continue (if its without the Comunidad that is not a ”continue” because it remains to be seen what the leverage would be without the candy of the possible dissolution) to push for additional phases to be carried out until the water infrastructure of the entire urbanisation is renewed. Not to mention that in November 2022 the renovation and improvement of the energy efficiency of the public lighting installation in the urbanisation was also finally approved by the City Council and will also be carried out this year. (Erratum nr 15: the approval is about an energetic study concerning the lighting. If you can read Spanish it is what is says. After 4 years of promising those LED lights we are  “already” at the stage of an energetic study. At the risk of telling a lie myself but still relevant, insiders have told us that the European money for this LED project was spent on something else and now new studies are being approved to win some time to until a big windfall occurs)

3. Thirdly, we have presented a whole battery of legal arguments for the Town Council to

once again request the Ministry of Transport to install noise barriers on the AP-7

motorway as it passes through the urbanisation, which the Town Council has already

presented. In this regard, we have taken advantage of the fact that in the coming months

noise maps will be drawn up for the AP-7 motorway (Mitma awards seven contracts for

9.3 million euros to draw up Strategic Maps and Action Plans against Noise on State

roads | Ministry of Transport, Mobility and the Urban Agenda). Precisely from the areas

of greatest noise detected in the elaboration of these maps, measures to mitigate noise

pollution are subsequently approved. The Board of Directors is therefore awaiting the

development of these noise measurements in order to exert the greatest possible

pressure, both at local and state level.

( This request was part of the demands we expressed together at a meeting in El Jardin with the Mayor. Before May 2022 when the new board was elected. This was the time of the consultation meetings and in that period the consensus was to perform all those demands as an enhanced Comunidad. This demand is not exclusively for Foya Blanca and most people are sceptic about it. In Northern Europe this has been done everywhere since 20 years but the results are limited and certainly for the people living on a higher plot with sea view. So we embrace that but Foya Blanca is just a follower in this not leading)

4. Fourthly, we have requested the refurbishment of the urbanisation's social club and the

removal of architectural barriers to access the urbanisation's post boxes. In this regard,

an aesthetic improvement has already been carried out and we are waiting for the Town

Hall to commit to installing an access ramp for people with reduced mobility or to place

the mailboxes in a place with better access.

( This request was part of the demands we expressed together at a meeting in El Jardin with the Mayor. Before May 2022 when the new board was elected. This was the time of the consultation meetings and in that period the consensus was to perform all those demands as an enhanced Comunidad)

5. Fifthly, we have requested the improvement of the access roads to the urbanisation. In

this regard, I would like to inform you that, after several meetings, we have managed to

get the Town Hall to commit to carrying out the following works in the coming months:

• Widening of the Cami de Europa, including cycle-pedestrian lane and the installation

of four municipal street lights.

• Repaving of the asphalt on the Camí de Foya Blanca.

• Widening of Camí de Benidorm to provide two-way access to the National 332 Altea-

Benidorm.

( This request was part of the demands we expressed together at a meeting in El Jardin with the Mayor. Before May 2022 when the new board was elected. This was the time of the consultation meetings and in that period the consensus was to perform all those demands as an enhanced Comunidad)

6. Sixthly and lastly, we have requested the installation of three video surveillance cameras

at each of the entrances to the urbanisation. At the moment, the Town Hall has

committed to installing two, one at the Camí de Europa access and the other at the Camí

de Foya Blanca access, which will be installed before June 2023.

Access Camí Foya Blanca: Access Camí Europa:

( Again, this request was part of the demands we expressed together at a meeting in El Jardin with the Mayor. Before May 2022 when the new board was elected. This was the time of the consultation meetings and in that period the consensus was to perform all those demands as an enhance Comunidad

In short, in less than a year, we have managed to get the Town Hall to make a significant

investment ( Erratum nr 16: those are not investments but promises like the LED lights. The Townhall is for us a long string of promises for one thing and executing something else. So the word MAKE a significant investment is a lie because not a dime has been spent. All the works that have been done in 2022 are done by the students of the special training given in the Green zone) in the urbanisation and its surroundings, all at no cost to the residents of the urbanisation.

But, in addition, with the dismissal of Martín, and not hiring private containers for pruning, not only have we avoided the risk for the Community of Owners to have hired a person without the appropriate means (we remind you that we no longer had a vehicle suitable for circulation and that the trailer was not registered in the name of the Community), but also that the pavements of the streets of the urbanisation no longer have bags of pruning for days. (many people put them now a little bit more inside and ask Martin to take them away for payment. It costs us more than before but the real worry is that the cleaning work Martin did is not taken over by the Townhall) The owners who have large quantities of pruning waste hire their own gardeners who manage the pruning waste on the spot. (and this has costed us all much more than 210 euro since the service stopped, so we paid anyway) And, as we have already warned you, the Municipal Ordinance prohibits depositing

sacks of pruning waste on the public sidewalks (maybe if the Townhall would clean the so-called public sidewalks it would be apparent they are public. And that is irrespective of the paving. Most dirty sidewalks are the paved ones with weeds growing through every crack. The non paved ones are part of the gardens) been maintained, the Town Hall would have begun to sanction the owners, and secondly, the Community of Owners for encouraging this irregular practice. Imagine if all these actions that we are telling you about had to be assumed directly by the owners of the urbanisation. The cost of the renovation of Phase 1 of the sewage system of the urbanisation alone, which will also include a new drinking water network and a recycled water network for irrigation, amounts to approximately 450,000.00.-€. The overall cost of this renovation for the whole urbanisation is estimated to be several million Euros given that the urbanisation is approximately 200.000 m2

 Therefore, we should be very pleased that the Town Hall in the coming years is committed to invest public money in the urbanisation Foya Blanca and in the meantime assumes responsibility for any damage that may occur in the general sewage system, even when it is located within private property. And this has been achieved thanks to the members of the Board of Directors (of the Comunidad) who can talk to the Town Hall in Spanish, and who reall work day by day, with data, and knowing the legal rights and obligations that we have as citizens of a tourist municipality, such as Alfaz del Pi. The urbanisation of Foya Blanca has been abandoned for many years with the excuse (Erratum nr 17: in 1995 -1996 the Comunidad tried to hand over the infrastructure officially to the Townhall because the signature of Malonda on the deed of cession was not representative. Well the Townhall at that time knowingly refused to accept it. Anybody who wants to see those documents can ask for it by email. So there is no excuse. Since Martin is not cleaning anymore there is about 1km of uncleaned parts of the road and it will be worse with the years)  that the Community of Owners was supposedly responsible for its infrastructure such as sewage, green areas, etc., and that is how it has been. We have to be realistic and work hand in hand with the Town Hall so that they respect us and listen to us (they have to respect us I totally agree and they don’t for the moment so we would prefer to sue them instead suing of the President). Having said that, I am obliged to inform you that we are currently in a very complicated situation. In the first lawsuit filed by Renaldo Delabie, it was requested that until the trial is held (which is not expected to take place until 2024) the execution of the agreements adopted at the Neighbours' Meeting of 16 September 2022 be suspended as a precautionary measure, since, according to his lawyer, if we wait for the trial and the Court grants him the right, "the damage to the Community of Owners would be irreparable". Well, the Benidorm Court (without going into the details of the case, as we have not even proceeded to answer the claim yet -due to the delay of the court-), unfortunately, has granted Renaldo Delabie the precautionary measure requested, forcing the Community of Owners to temporarily hire Martin again as a worker, paying him for the months he has not worked ( the resolution says that he should be paid  only for the working hours performed) , as well as agreeing to the temporary suspension of the agreements that dealt with the Community's debt, which means that the owners who had outstanding debt as of 16 September will continue to maintain it, prohibiting them from voting until they pay the total of their debt (including the debt corresponding to years prior to 2017). And all of this, until the trial is held, and a ruling is passed, which, taking into account the strikes that are currently being called in the Spanish justice system, is expected to take a long time. And the fact is that with the precautionary measure granted to Renaldo Delabie, even in the case of a ruling in favor of the Community of Owners, Martin would have to be dismissed again, increasing the cost of dismissal due to his greater seniority, in addition to the fact that we will be forced to approve a budget for 2023 in order to be able to pay his monthly salary. (Well this might indeed be true if the Court decides that the General Meeting of 16th of September was illegal. Why the surprise? We asked to save our vote during the General Meeting which is actually announcing that we would nullify the decisions. This is how it works. And if the decisions are indeed considered as illegal by the judge they are reversed that is normal. But who is to blame? The party being illegal or the party denunciating the illegality? Right, we all agree it’s the party being illegal. It is time they realize that being in the board doesn’t mean you can play little dictator and leave the mess and the costs for the Community of owners and thus for the Owners. The Owners are not supposed to know what is illegal but the board does. It’s a shame that they blame the denunciators for the costs incurred, totally irresponsible and immature)

In view of the above: Firstly, we need all residents who have not paid their membership fees for 2022 to pay them immediately. If you fail to do so, not only will you not have the right to vote at the next General Assembly, but you will also be included in the list of people who will be sued for the debt.( this means the votes of 16 th of September and 25th of November were not valid. 2022 was overdue as of july 2022 and should already have been on that list. Another illegal thing they were doing)  were also  If you have any doubts regarding the amount to be paid or the bank account number where to pay your dues, please contact me directly. Secondly, we need you to make sure that you personally attend the next General Assembly of Neighbours that we will be convening shortly, as every vote will count (as long as the owner has paid their dues, including that of 2022). You can decide whether to vote in favour of the urbanisation model proposed by Renaldo Delabie and Vital Delneste, or whether you prefer to vote for the urbanisation model proposed by us. (Since the description of the urbanisation model we are standing for is wrong, we should be able to explain it ourselves first. In our Model we don’t just pressure the Townhall we sue them for a long list of more than 10 points of non conformity. This could well be out of our own pockets again, since we are not sparing any efforts for our dear Comunidad to be in good shape). What happens from now on with Martin, with the urbanisation, with the Board of Directors, depends on all of you. If you care about your home and your environment, make sure you attend, and if you really have no way of attending, delegate your vote to whoever you trust (the party trusted by the judge would be good to begin with), but please inform yourselves well beforehand about the proposals that each of the parties make and how they can be carried out. In short, in the coming weeks you will all receive the call for an Extraordinary General Meeting of neighbours, where it will be decided in assembly, and by majority vote, how the Community of Owners should proceed as a result of the lawsuits filed by Mr. Renaldo Delabie and Mr. Vital Delneste to challenge the agreements.

At the end of the day, the future of the urbanisation and that the current Board of Directors can

continue working to put pressure on the Town Hall ( Erratum nr. 18: the current Board of Directors is the one of the Comunidad de propietarios Foya Blanca. They can’t hide like on the General Meeting of 25th May that they want to be elected to dissolve. Dissolving means the current Board of Directors is not continuing. The erratum lays in the fact that they want to make us believe they will be able to apply the same power without the Comunidad as with the Comunidad. Their model is not based on the “current Board of Directors”. If they could be trusted we would have no problem with them continuing to be the Board as long as they don’t dissolve. Our opposition is strong enough that their energy is being used in the right direction many times. But we cannot be fools, once dissolved there is no model anymore, there will be no real platform. The Benelux owners and Norwegians are busy creating their own Association, not to replace to Comunidad but as a level in between to organise ourselves to keep control of the Comunidad. The Associacion the Vecinos will be sued if it pretends to represent the Urbanisation because it doesn’t and will never be) to improve the urbanization depends on you.

Depending on the agreements that will be adopted, and which you will soon find out about in

the agenda that will be sent to you together with the notice of meeting, the budget for 2023,

the legal claim for the unpaid fees (including those for 2022), the election of a new Board of

Directors, and the measures that are considered necessary to alleviate, as far as possible, the

economic damages derived from the lawsuits filed and the precautionary measure initially

granted to Mr. Renaldo Delabie, will have to be approved.

Finally, we invite you to follow the news of the Foya Blanca Community of Owners on Facebook:

https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100092334874290&mibextid=ZbWKwL

(The Facebook page creates a new service strengthening the Comunidad. The President has so abusively used the Law of Privacy to protect his monopoly on the data usage and now this. Suddenly he is not afraid to throw the data of the Owners into the jaws of Facebook who’s business model it is to pay for the free service by misusing your private data at it’s own discretion. But this is all consistently in line with all of the critics above)