We bought house in Ourense: Claims to the Concello de Cenlle begin

Hi there,

During our sixth weekend in the house in Ourense, the neighbor who lives right next door approached us to tell us that our ruin was causing dampness in her house.

It was at that moment that we learned, from her, that she had already filed a formal complaint on that property when it was still in the name of the former owner.

We had bought that property relying on a town planning report that we had requested from the Concello before signing anything. A report that said that everything was in order, that there were no problems, no complaints, no incidents registered.

That was the starting point. The first complaint we filed was because of this contradiction: how can it be that they give us a report saying that everything is fine, if there was already a complaint registered about the property?

> Subject: Claim for contradiction between the issued ordinance and the existence of a registered complaint

Date: 19/05/2025

On 3/3/2025, I asked the City Council for information on the urban status of several properties that I was going to acquire on April 11, 2025, in order to verify if there was any charge, affection or administrative procedure that could influence the legality, habitability or structural situation of the property.

The answer obtained was that the property did not present any urban development incidence or complaint in progress.

However, I have had access to a document registered by this same Concello with entry number 770, dated January 26, 2025, in which an adjoining neighbor, Mrs. Margarita Fernández Torres, denounces the existence of damp, leaks, damage to the foundation, accumulation of debris, rats and fire risk in relation to the state of the property that I subsequently acquired.

This letter, which also requests the intervention of the Concello against the former owner, was registered before the ordinance report was issued to me, which poses a serious contradiction: how is it possible that I have been guaranteed in writing that there was no incident, when there was already a formal complaint on record about the state of the property?

Furthermore, I request that all the evidence provided by the aforementioned neighbor be sent to me, as we have not been provided with any of it.

Unlike what she says in the burofaxes provided by Mrs. Margarita, she has only told us that we had to install a gutter and waterproof a piece of wall. All by word of mouth, without any proof or official document to prove what she told us.

On the other hand, the burofaxes ask for absurd and completely illegal things.

That ruin is a ruin, therefore, there is nothing to tear down. There are no rats either, and if there were, it would be due to the agricultural activity of the village (presence of animals, animal feed, etc.). The water that falls from the roof falls on the ground right next to the wall of our house; therefore, the humidities should be ours.

For all these reasons, I request:

1. Detailed written explanations as to why we were not informed of the existence of such a registered complaint, which has directly affected my purchase process.

2. Immediate access to all documentation provided by Mrs. Margarita Fernández Torres, including expert reports, photographic records or other attachments that should have accompanied her complaint.

3. Clarification of the technical or administrative criteria that were followed to issue an order without taking into account the formal complaint made by Mrs. Margarita.

4. To investigate whether there was a possible omission or administrative negligence in not including this information in the document provided.

Likewise, I reserve the right to file the pertinent legal actions in case this situation results in economic or legal damages derived from the incomplete or erroneous information provided by the administration.

I am awaiting a formal written reply, within the legally established deadlines.

As if it were not enough to discover that a previous complaint was concealed from us, it turns out that the urban planning ordinance – that document for which we paid, and which was supposed to help us buy with peace of mind – was sent to us in Galician.

The request had been made in Spanish from the beginning, so it doesn’t make sense that they would send it in Galician. So, we filed a second complaint: not only because of a question of form, but because we understand that it is a basic right as administrators.

> Subject: Request for the use of Spanish in administrative communications

Date: 05/19/2025

I am writing to this Concello in relation to the documentation sent by this administration in the framework of an urban planning consultation carried out before proceeding with the purchase of a property in this municipality.

I hereby express my disagreement with the fact that the document received has been drafted exclusively in Galician, despite the fact that the initial request was made in Castilian (Spanish), and at no time was the use of Galician requested.

I am fully aware that Galician and Castilian are co-official languages in Galicia, in accordance with the provisions of Article 3. 2 of the Spanish Constitution, which states that “the other Spanish languages shall also be official in the respective Autonomous Communities in accordance with their Statutes”, and in Article 5 of the Statute of Autonomy of Galicia, which provides that “the language of Galicia is Galician, and the public authorities of Galicia shall guarantee its normal and official use, and shall protect its use in all areas of public and cultural life, and shall promote its knowledge”.

However, I also invoke my right, recognized in Article 3.1 of the Spanish Constitution, which states that “Castilian is the official Spanish language of the State. All Spaniards have the duty to know it and the right to use it”. Consequently, as a person who has used Spanish in the initial communication, I am entitled to receive a reply in the same language.

Likewise, Article 36 of Law 39/2015, of October 1, of the Common Administrative Procedure of the Public Administrations, establishes that:

> “The language of the procedures processed by the General State Administration shall be Spanish. However, interested parties who address the bodies of the General State Administration with headquarters in the territory of an Autonomous Community may also use the language that is co-official therein. The Administration shall ensure the use of the language chosen by the interested party in the procedure, provided that it is not incompatible with the right of others to choose it as well”.

Therefore, and given that I expressly chose Spanish from the beginning of the procedure, and that I do not speak Galician, I request that the order for which I have already paid be sent to me in Spanish, as it should have been sent from the beginning.

In addition, I request that from now on all communications and documents sent to me from this Concello be written in Spanish, so that I can exercise my rights with full understanding and legal certainty.

The third straw that broke the camel’s back was the citizen service, or rather, the total absence of it. They neither answer the phone nor respond to emails. So, we made a third complaint.

As we didn’t get a response either, we decided to take the three complaints to the Diputación de Ourense, asking them to act as intermediaries. And that was the best we could do. As soon as the complaints arrived, they called us directly to ask us for an additional document to formalize our request.

> Subject: Complaint due to lack of telephone attention and lack of response to electronic communication

Date: 05/19/2025

We are addressing this Concello to file a formal complaint for serious deficiencies in the attention to the citizen by the municipal administrative services.

1. Lack of telephone attention:

During the week of May 6 to 10, 2025, I repeatedly tried to contact the Concello de Cenlle during office hours (from 9:00 to 14:00 hours), without getting an answer in any of the numerous calls made. This situation, as far as I have been able to verify, is not punctual, but habitual, and shows a serious negligence in the fulfillment of the basic duty of attention to the citizen. In order for a person to be attended by telephone, they must literally spend hours calling in the hope that, by chance, someone will answer.

And when they finally do answer the phone, they don’t even say good morning or identify themselves, but instead say, “Tell me.” Which leaves a lot to be desired for an official state agency.

2. Lack of response to email:

Given the impossibility of contacting by phone, on May 9, 2025, I sent an email to the Concello de Cenlle, with an urgent query related to the cadastral classification of some properties, necessary to proceed with the payment of the Property Transfer Tax to the Tax Agency. As of today, May 19, 2025, ten days have passed without any response. This lack of response demonstrates a worrying lack of institutional diligence and generates a situation of legal insecurity for the taxpayer, making it impossible for them to properly comply with their tax obligations.

Legal basis:

This situation contravenes several principles and rules of our legal system:

Article 103 of the Spanish Constitution: it establishes that “the Public Administration serves with objectivity the general interests and acts in accordance with the principles of efficiency, hierarchy, decentralization, deconcentration and coordination, with full submission to the law”.

Article 13.d) of Law 39/2015, of October 1, on the Common Administrative Procedure of Public Administrations (LPAC): recognizes citizens the right to “obtain information and guidance on the legal or technical requirements that the provisions in force impose on the projects, actions or applications they intend to carry out”.

Article 20 of the same law (LPAC): establishes that “the Public Administrations must guarantee the right of citizens to interact with them by electronic means, as well as to be assisted in the use of these means”, and that such assistance must be effective.

Article 21 of the LPAC: also indicates that the administration is obliged to expressly resolve and notify in due time any request submitted by citizens, which includes responses to consultations and requests for administrative information.

In addition, Royal Decree 951/2005, of July 29, establishing the general framework for the improvement of quality in the General State Administration, establishes as one of the pillars of administrative quality the efficiency of citizen service, which must be clear, accessible and timely.

I request:

– That immediate measures be taken to guarantee telephone attention during regular business hours, by assigning sufficient personnel or adequate means.

– That a protocol be established to guarantee a response to citizens’ e-mails within a reasonable period of time, as required by current regulations.

– That a formal written response to this complaint be sent to me and that I be informed of the measures adopted.

– That the email of May 9, 2025, be answered.

– That training be provided so that the personnel who answer the telephone do so with education and the pertinent forms for a public administration office.

The following week, after having made the proper photographic record, I sent another complaint to the Diputación de Ourense because an adjoining house did not have the proper gutter for the collection of rainwater and the wall that was attached to my terrace was falling apart.

This had generated humidity, extreme dirt on the terrace and danger due to the stones that were continually falling from the wall.

On May 26th I filed a claim under the Galician land law which states that the city council has the obligation to intervene in this type of situation.

It was not only about these 3 claims, but I had already programmed myself to send little by little the ones I had pending, and I will tell you more about them later on.

On May 27, between 9:00 and 10:00 a.m., we received a call from the mayor of Cenlle, who informed us that she had received three emails from us (referring to the first three complaints).

The mayor said she did not know what had happened on May 10 because there are always people answering the phone there.

We clarified that the complaint is not limited to what happened on May 10, but rather responds to a recurring and systematic situation.

The mayor said that a complaint “had been answered verbally.”

We told her that the complaint that was responded to verbally predates April 11 and has absolutely nothing to do with these three complaints that have been made.

Furthermore, we explained that a verbal response is not valid in an administrative procedure. Responses must be in writing and officially registered, as established by administrative regulations.

Regarding the language, the mayor stated that “from now on” we would be responded to in Spanish, but we clarified that what we are requesting is also a Spanish translation of the planning document that has already been sent only in Galician.

Furthermore, we insisted on the importance of the third complaint, which refers to a letter with registration number 770, submitted by Mrs. Margarita and addressed to the mayor, in which she requests the intervention of the Cenlle City Council due to alleged dampness in her home, which, she claims, comes from one of our properties. We pointed out that this situation must be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of the Galician Land Law.

The mayor, however, was unaware of the matter and told us that she would meet with her municipal architect and call us with an answer the following day.

On the morning of May 28, we received a call from the council’s architect, Gemma, supposedly with the mayor at her side. She told us that she was calling to “clarify some doubts” and asked us to tell her what they were.

We replied that we did not have to explain anything further, as the content of the complaint was detailed in one of the three emails that the mayor had received and read the previous day. It was the mayor who should have given her all the information. Her response was that she was unaware of these emails, that she would request them, and that she would call us back.

A short time later, the mayor called again. During that conversation, she once again demonstrated a complete lack of knowledge of the entire situation. She remained focused solely on the complaint about the telephone service and the emails and also indicated that she could not find the email dated May 9. We reiterated that there were three separate complaints:

• The first, precisely about the lack of telephone service and the lack of response to emails, requesting a response to the email dated May 9, the content of which was key to paying taxes to the Tax Agency within the corresponding deadline.
• The second, requesting that the planning document already sent in Galician also be sent in Spanish.
• The third, requesting a formal response to the complaint filed by Ms. Margarita, registered under number 770, and regarding the possible responsibility of the City Council in this situation, in accordance with the Galician Land Law. It is precisely this complaint that your architect Gema was supposed to respond to today.

To all these questions—including those relating to the status of Ms. Margarita’s complaint, whether its content has been investigated, and whether it has been processed in accordance with the law, whether evidence has been requested, whether an expert has been sent, whether Margarita has been responded to—the mayor said she knew nothing.

The conversation ended with the promise that, as the emails requested a written response, the City Council would respond in that manner. So why did they call if they didn’t have an answer? Why did they call if they knew they were required to respond in writing?

Regarding the gutter, on June 9, 2025, we received a notification from the Provincial Council of Ourense stating that the complaint had been registered and that the Municipality of Cenlle had three months to respond.

The absurd thing is that they responded in Galician when all the requests and complaints had been made in Spanish; therefore, another complaint would have to be made to request the document in Spanish.

On the other hand, we received a response in Spanish in which it said that they were sending these 4 claims to the City Council of Cenlle under the laws that defend the autonomy of municipalities.

So we made a new claim since we consider that this action does not provide an adequate response to what we expressly requested, since at no time have we asked that the Provincial Council intervene in municipal powers, but that it act as an institutional intermediary, a legitimate and recognized function of the provincial councils, especially when there is a communicative blockade and a manifest absence of administrative response from the city council.