Los conflictos entre vecinos han aumentado su nivel de violencia, generando preocupación en las comunidades. La justicia puede ser lenta para actuar, pero las víctimas tienen acciones legales disponibles. El consorcio tiene la responsabilidad de tomar medidas de protección para los vecinos afectados, incluyendo la convocatoria a asambleas, contratación de mediadores y adopción de medidas legales. Un caso reciente involucra a una pareja que arrojó excrementos en la puerta de un vecino, generando indignación y llamados a una acción más rápida por parte del sistema judicial y los administradores del edificio.
Category
🗞
NewsTranscript
00:00What's going on? Neighborhood conflicts last a lifetime.
00:04But you see more and more violence between neighbors.
00:11Yes, there is usually violence when there is no entry barrier.
00:19And that is the responsibility of the consortium.
00:22So violence can be attacked in different ways.
00:27For example, people who are victims have legal action to act against violence.
00:35But if justice doesn't act quickly, it takes a long time.
00:42We have been making complaints for a long time.
00:45One of the neighbors here, for example, is the owner.
00:49She got angry with her, she threatened her, she felt threatened.
00:54She made the complaint, and that's when justice came in.
00:57It put a restriction on approach.
00:59But with him, more than this measure, he adopted another one.
01:02And there were complaints from other neighbors.
01:04Now they just moved him, let's say.
01:07Sometimes the consortium can't get someone out.
01:11Or can't tell someone what to do. It's very complicated.
01:15Well, in front of the woman, justice is forced to act.
01:20Because it justifies an obligation through Law 26485,
01:27which is the integral protection of the woman.
01:30So, in a preventive way, the approach of this person is restricted.
01:37Surely the restriction should not have been less than 200 meters.
01:41Therefore, the man should not have been at home.
01:44Because if this woman lived in that home, she cannot be excluded from her home.
01:49What happens is that this woman decides to leave the place.
01:54Being the owner, she goes to another place to rent.
01:57She says, well, I can't live with this person.
01:59And this man is also the owner.
02:03So they can't kick him out of the building.
02:06Well, but if there is a restriction on approach, and there are two owners,
02:10the man must obey the judicial order,
02:14because otherwise he would be charged with disobedience.
02:18Therefore, the woman decided to leave.
02:21Justice, in front of that, is not going to do anything,
02:24because she was the one who decided to leave.
02:28Doctor, maybe the woman got tired of waiting
02:31and saw that this situation was getting worse and worse.
02:33If he refuses to withdraw, does not listen to justice, what instance does he have?
02:40Well, they can apply disobedience fines and arrest him.
02:45Or he can go to jail.
02:48Therefore, the woman decided to leave,
02:52to get away from this subject,
02:55when in reality it should have been the other way around.
02:58But justice acted.
03:00In front of the complaint of this woman,
03:02because they are forced in a preventive way
03:05to adopt this precautionary measure
03:07and request a restriction on approach.
03:10If this man approached,
03:12he was within a radius of 200 meters,
03:15at least, I don't know what restriction they would have given him,
03:18he could have gone to jail.
03:20So, it's not that justice didn't act.
03:22In that particular case.
03:25Now, the consortium...
03:26I'm going to emphasize this,
03:28because the owners' consortium is responsible
03:32for the maintenance of security
03:34and coexistence within common spaces.
03:37Nothing says in the public information
03:40that has been provided to us
03:42that it has carried out all the measures
03:48or adopted all the measures
03:50by which it is obliged through the civil and commercial code.
03:54Because if the harassment occurs...
03:58Well, if the harassment occurred in common spaces,
04:02the administrator, who is in charge of the consortium,
04:05in the representation of that consortium,
04:08has the duty to take measures
04:10to protect the rights of the affected neighbors.
04:13For example, to convene an assembly
04:15to deal with the issue,
04:17to hire a mediator in mild cases,
04:21when there are discussions or enmities within the building.
04:26But it can also adopt legal measures.
04:29It should have filed complaints for acts of violence
04:33and request or initiate a judicial action
04:36for violation of the rules of coexistence.
04:39Because it could also have filed complaints
04:42if it did not adopt these measures in compliance.
04:46And that is a crime.
04:48And it weighs on the administrator of the consortium.
04:51Because if the neighbors filed complaints,
04:53they filed complaints in front of the consortium.
04:56And the obligation of the consortium to intervene
04:59was not an adopted measure.
05:02So, in my opinion,
05:04they have intruded in a cover-up
05:07with respect to this person,
05:10beyond the measures adopted by each victim neighbor of this subject.
05:14Yes, of course.
05:15That is to say, the consortium is obliged to file a complaint.
05:18Because it represents all the neighbors before the court.
05:21And if that neighbor does not do it,
05:24the affected neighbor could go against the consortium
05:28and against the neighbor with whom they are in conflict.
05:33Yes, against the consortium and against the administrator.
05:36Because they must guarantee a safe and peaceful environment
05:39for all the neighbors.
05:41Although, it is not always directly responsible
05:44for the behavior of an owner.
05:46But it is responsible for adopting necessary measures
05:49to prevent actions from affecting anyone.
05:52So, the omission of responsibility,
05:54because there is a clear omission of responsibility,
05:56can lead to legal sanctions,
05:59or according to what the code says,
06:02or to a complaint.
06:04And there we will see.
06:05We want to share with you,
06:07with all of you who are watching us too,
06:09what happened in Mar del Plata.
06:11In Mar del Plata there was also a fact,
06:13let's say, not similar in characteristics,
06:15but also in conflict between neighbors.
06:17There were also some signs here.
06:20Because a neighbor denounced, in addition to harassment,
06:23that they left excrement at the door of his apartment,
06:28with whom he lives, with his wife, son or daughter.
06:32And also, this is the moment when a neighbor
06:36throws garbage in a bag,
06:38and he throws the bag, he already threw the garbage,
06:41in a car, in a Meari, there it is,
06:43in the Meari of his property, right?
06:46That is, there is a conflict there,
06:48for a complaint, apparently,
06:50in a consortium meeting,
06:52in which they were claiming that the manager
06:55was not taking good care of the issue,
06:58and why they had to keep paying him,
07:00paying the salary.
07:02And it seems that some,
07:04or a couple, in principle,
07:06they took it against this neighbor.
07:08Of course, as in defense of that manager,
07:10who also, the manager,
07:12was busy erasing this type of images.
07:16Exactly.
07:17At least she is accused of being her.
07:19Exactly.
07:20Some record was left, another was lost.
07:22Exactly.
07:23The complainant, what he says is,
07:25the couple, at a certain moment,
07:27approaches the door of my home,
07:29and throws excrement that they had in a bag.
07:32He dirty all the entrance to the apartment.
07:34And he dirties the whole door, well, a disgust.
07:39And then he leaves the place.
07:41This neighbor, who you see in the elevator,
07:43is hearing like screams.
07:45Because, of course,
07:47he discovered that there were excrements in the door.
07:51In the door of the building.
07:53He is listening through the door.
07:55Yes, there is the woman with the couple.
07:57Now they are going to go up to the elevator,
07:59because they left the door open.
08:01Yes.
08:02You see that this neighbor now runs because he heard the door.
08:05And now they are going to go down to that floor.
08:07The same couple,
08:09they are going to go down to that floor.
08:11The elevator was upstairs.
08:13There they open the door,
08:15and they leave, as if nothing.
08:17Both of them.
08:21And they say hello to this neighbor, who has nothing to do with it.
08:23And here is the woman in charge.
08:25And here is the woman in charge.
08:30Trying, what the neighbor says,
08:32to erase some images.
08:34It's a combo, right?
08:36At least there.
08:38Now, how can you continue living in this situation, doctor?
08:42Yes, it is quite conflictive
08:45that the person in charge
08:47is in front of all these actions,
08:51which are violent and harmful,
08:54and also constitute harassment,
08:56according to what the law says.
08:59This can constitute a crime.
09:01Because, let's see, not only are they exposed,
09:04the person in charge will always be there.
09:06It is not a tenant who can be removed
09:09with legal measures.
09:12But harassment can be configured as a crime,
09:19and it can also be determined
09:21that there is psychological violence
09:23when being persistent.
09:25But then it is also the cause of harm.
09:27Because if this person causes damage to the property,
09:30for example,
09:32this also frames
09:34what the criminal code says.
09:36So the threatening attitude of this woman
09:40will always cause serious harm.
09:43And that serious harm,
09:45being in charge, is imminent.
09:47Therefore, feeling threatened
09:50can be easily denounced.
09:53Sure, but why does it make the difference
09:56that it is more difficult to remove her
09:58for being in charge than being a tenant?
10:00If she ends up being an employee
10:02who is not fulfilling her function
10:04and is doing everything to make life worse
10:06for the owner there.
10:08Can't she be fired with cause,
10:10in this case, for example?
10:12Well, let's go back to the same thing,
10:14the responsibilities of the consortium.
10:16What happens is that
10:18what happens with the tenant
10:20weighs not only on the tenant,
10:22but the solidarity responsibility
10:24is also with the owner.
10:26And the owner,
10:28when making a rental contract,
10:30there are express clauses
10:32to limit this type of behavior.
10:35Now, the client can be fired,
10:37but many times there is
10:39a certain resistance
10:41on the part of the owners
10:43because they have to look for a justification
10:46and that justification has to be accredited.
10:49So sometimes there is a certain resistance
10:52on the part of the owners.
10:54Yes, and that is a problem.
10:56Doctor, thank you.
10:58Thank you for attending us.
11:00See you later.