Not always stopping using a service means being free from paying for it in a condominium. There are expenses that continue to exist even when a condominium owner considers not directly benefiting from them, and there is a legal detail that can change everything.
In Spain, a case analyzed by the Oviedo Provincial Audience drew attention to this point. According to the ruling of September 24, 2025, summarized by , an owner of several locations refused to pay a community-approved surcharge to replace the building’s boiler, claiming that he was not using the heating system.
According to the same source, the decision of the Provincial Hearing ended up contradicting this position, although it still allowed an appeal for cassation to the Supreme Court.
Court concludes that payment is mandatory
The case reached the Oviedo Provincial Hearing, which ruled in favor of the community of owners. At issue was the replacement of the building’s boiler, a project financed through a grant distributed among all owners, including locals.
The owner argued that, as he did not use the heating, he should not bear this cost.
First decision was reversed
At an early stage, the Juzgado de Primera Instancia no. 1 de Siero ruled in favor of the condominium owner and annulled the obligation to pay. However, this decision was later reversed at a higher court.
The Provincial Hearing understood that, in this case, the nature of the intervention justified the participation of the locals.
Common elements weigh in the decision
According to the ruling, the boiler room is part of the common elements of the building. As such, and under article 9.1.e) of the Spanish Horizontal Property Law, the rule is that all owners contribute to the general expenses of the property, unless there is a clear statutory exemption.
Even without direct use, the system is part of a common building installation.
Statutes do not guarantee total exclusion
The condominium owner claimed that the statutes exempted him from this type of charge. However, the court held that this exemption was not absolute.
The interpretation made was that the clause only removed, while the sites were not connected to the system, the costs of consumption and maintenance, and not the charges for replacing the boiler, which the Hearing treated as an intervention comparable to a new installation.
An improvement that adds value to the property
Another decisive point was the fact that replacing the boiler was considered a necessary intervention, and not a mere convenience.
According to the Oviedo Provincial Hearing, the old boiler had reached the end of its useful life, was not repairable and would have to be removed in the near future as it ran on diesel.
This type of intervention therefore contributes to the overall appreciation of the property, regardless of its immediate use.
Possibility of future use account
Even if the homeowner does not currently use the heating, they can do so in the future. This possibility was considered relevant by the court.
According to the ruling, the new system was available to all properties in the building, including local ones, who could connect to the service whenever they wanted.
Jurisprudence points to restrictive interpretation
The decision was also based on the jurisprudence of the Spanish Supreme Court. According to this understanding, notably that set out in the judgment of June 21, 2018, exemption clauses must be interpreted restrictively.
In other words, they do not automatically extend to charges for installations or interventions that improve the building and increase its value.
And in Portugal, what does the law say?
Although the case took place in Spain, Portuguese law is based on similar principles in several points.
Article 1,420, § 2, of the Civil Code establishes that the condominium owner cannot renounce the common part to avoid the expenses necessary for its conservation or enjoyment. Article 1421 includes, among the common parts, general heating installations. And article 1,424 determines that the expenses necessary for the conservation and enjoyment of the common parts and related to the payment of services of common interest are, as a rule, borne by the condominium owners in proportion to the value of the respective fractions.
This does not mean that the Portuguese outcome was automatically the same as the Spanish one in any situation.
The answer would always depend on the constitutive title, the specific nature of the work and the existence or not of a valid exclusion.
When can there be an exemption
Portuguese law allows exceptions in specific cases. Article 1,424 itself provides that expenses relating to common parts of the building that exclusively serve one of the condominium owners are borne by those who use them. And, if an innovation in the common parts is at stake, the rules of articles 1,425 and 1,426 of the Civil Code also come into play.
Even so, the simple allegation that a condominium owner does not currently use a certain common system is not sufficient, in itself, to prevent payment.
A detail that can avoid conflicts
Situations like this show the importance of knowing the condominium rules well. The logic of individual use does not always coincide with legal obligations. Before refusing to pay a fee, it is essential to understand the nature of the work.
If an intervention is at stake in a common facility in the building, the obligation to pay can be maintained even when a condominium owner does not currently use the service.
Knowing this detail, confirming what the statutes say and understanding exactly which work was approved can avoid conflicts with the condominium and unexpected expenses.
Also read:
