One of the recurring issues in the life of a homeowners’ association, particularly affecting the independence of older people and people with disabilities, is access to their homes when the building has no lift.
As is well known, where the general meeting has not passed a resolution approving work to remove architectural barriers, Catalan law allows those concerned to apply to the courts to require the association to remove them.
However, contrary to what might be assumed, recognising the importance of accessibility does not mean that the installation of any lift should be free from limitations and conditions. Indeed, several fundamental issues should be considered if a claim is to succeed.
The issue requires two questions to be considered together: who needs the adaptation, and what kind of work can be carried out. A sound claim must address both.
1. Who may apply for judicial intervention
Article 553-25.5 of the Civil Code of Catalonia grants this right to owners and holders of a possessory right over a privately owned unit when they themselves, or the people with whom they live or work, have a disability or are over seventy years old.
The provision also requires that it has not been possible to secure a resolution from the association and that the proposed work is reasonable and proportionate to achieving accessibility in the building.
It is therefore important to establish the connection with the dwelling or commercial premises, the person’s age or disability, and the existing barriers.
For evidential purposes, where mobility difficulties are cited, it is advisable to submit a medical report explaining why the stairs prevent or hinder access and what features the proposed solution must have.
2. The association’s resolution, or the absence of one
The installation of lifts and work to remove barriers may be approved by a simple majority of the owners participating in the vote and of their ownership shares, even where the work affects the building’s structure or external appearance.
With this in mind, two situations should be distinguished.
A) Where a valid and sufficiently detailed resolution exists, the claim may seek to enforce it.
B) Where approval has not been secured, judicial intervention under Article 553-25.5 becomes relevant. Hence the importance of retaining or obtaining requests, meeting notices, minutes and responses, as these establish what was proposed and why it was not carried out.
3. The need for a specific rather than an abstract request
One of the most significant mistakes when bringing court proceedings is simply requesting the installation of a lift while leaving its location, the necessary work and the cost to be decided later. This is a fundamental error, as it will undoubtedly lead to the dismissal of the claim: it means failing to provide the information and circumstances the court needs to decide whether the association should be required to undertake the requested installation.
For example, in Judgment 136/2025 of 12 March, the Barcelona Provincial Court rejected a general request for the removal of barriers. It held that reasonableness and proportionality must be assessed in relation to one or more specific proposals, and that essential matters cannot be deferred to the enforcement stage of the judgment.
The technical documentation must make it possible to understand where the lift will be installed, its dimensions and the floors it will serve, how residents will reach their homes from the street, what structural alterations are required and which spaces will be affected. It must also demonstrate that the solution meets the identified access needs.
4. The cost must be affordable and substantiated
Assessing whether the proposed work is reasonable requires consideration of matters such as the need for access, the full cost, maintenance, the rights affected, the association’s financial capacity and the grants actually available.
This must be examined on a case-by-case basis, particularly with regard to the homeowners’ association’s financial capacity. Any refusal to carry out work to remove barriers must therefore be sufficiently justified by existing financial commitments or by evidence that the work would impose an excessive financial burden on the owners.
5. The special case where occupying part of commercial premises or a dwelling is unavoidable
Finally, one further limitation must be mentioned: a resolution approving the installation of a lift does not grant an unlimited right to occupy spaces belonging to others.
In this respect, a distinction must be drawn between common elements, areas ancillary to privately owned units, and the interior of commercial premises or a dwelling. Following the 2015 reform, the permanent easement that may be imposed under Article 553-39.2 is limited to such ancillary areas. That civil-law route does not permit the compulsory occupation of a privately owned unit itself, whether commercial premises or a dwelling, without its owner’s consent.