“I think the creation of mediation is positive, although ideally it would not only be recommended, but mandatory for municipalities with a certain number of accommodations”, says the president of APEGAC, Vítor Amaral, in statements to Lusa.
“The law, saying ‘they can adopt the role of a mediator’, ‘they can’ is not an imposition, it is up to each municipality to do so or not”, he points out.
“For example – and I am not saying that this will happen – Lisbon, which is perhaps the city or municipality with the largest number of local accommodations, may not adopt the role of a mediator, because it is not mandatory”, notes Vítor Amaral, recalling, at the same time, that “most councils do not have the availability, either in terms of human resources or financial resources, to have someone, or a group of people in the larger ones, to carry out […] what is provided for in the future legislation”.
Therefore, the president of APEGAC considers that the wording adopted in the draft decree-law is “poorly resolved” and “is a mistake”.
Vítor Amaral recalls that some councils already have the role of a mediator, for example that of Porto, with positive results.
The mediator “has resolved many of the issues of conflict between condominium owners of housing units and condominium owners of units allocated to local accommodation”, he points out.
On August 8, the Government approved a draft decree-law that changes the legal framework for the operation of local accommodation establishments, which once again refers the decision to put an end to local accommodation in residential buildings to the municipal councils.
According to the law – sent for hearing by the autonomous regions of Madeira and the Azores and the National Association of Portuguese Municipalities (ANMP) –, condominiums can continue to oppose local accommodation, but they must base this opposition on “repeated and proven acts that disrupt the normal use of the building, as well as acts that cause inconvenience and affect the rest of the condominium owners”.
At the same time, condominiums, which currently can, with two thirds of the percentage (corresponding to the number of condominium owners), refuse local accommodation in residential buildings, must now request “a decision from the president of the territorially competent municipal council”.
At the same time, the mayor may not immediately order the cancellation of the local accommodation registration and “invite the parties to reach an agreement”.
Although he considers it “premature” to comment on a law “that is under consultation and may eventually be changed”, the president of APEGAC is already warning about the need to standardise the legal assessment of local accommodation.
Recalling that the courts have issued disparate rulings on the activity – one considering that it does not constitute a change to the purpose for which the housing unit is intended and another considering the opposite, which would require an agreement to be reached in all condominiums – Vítor Amaral believes that it is necessary to change the legal regime of horizontal property in order to state whether or not local accommodation is included in the concept of housing.