
    On the 27th of April 2021, the operators installed four large bollards located in front of the door of number 46 on Galileo Street.

    We believe this decision did not take into account the urban regulations of the General Urban Ordinance Plan (PGOU). Everybody knows that in this General Urban Ordinance Plan, it was determined when it is possible to install this type of urban element, that is to say, the cases that indicate that this installation will be built and the impossibility of this being uncommon were defined. This PGU was approved by majority.
    
    Therefore, the deficient installation of these four bollards has constituted a negligence, obviously, and entails consequences erga omnes, because they prevent vehicles from exiting the garage door of the home located in front of them, but I believe that it is possible to solve this problem through an alternative proposal. Another important matter is that this is pro indiviso housing between two people (who have several tenants) who know their propter rem obligations and will make use of habeas data if deemed necessary. We are certain that the best proposal in avoidance of this problem would be to remove two of the four bollards, that is to say, keep only two, separated by a distance of 3 metres.
    
    Obviously, this change must be performed free of charge, as long as it is planned with time, thus resulting in an improvement for all neighbours.
    
    Having set out these porblems, they should try to be resolved, and these facts solved.
    
    It is our conviction that it is mandatory to offer a solution to this fact, an indisputable issue. It is not implausible that in the future many people affected would also not be satisfied with this type of practices I have alluded to. Of course, these people will turn down similar initiatives and will try to prevent any attempt to install things of this type. In other words, if at any point they had considered this a harmful act, they would not hesitate to act against it.
    
    I believe we should participate in the decisions taken that affect us, that is to say, the opinion of the community of neighbours from the area should be taken into account because it is their right to be able to decide on these issues precisely. In other communities, like AVIT, we realised some time ago that they negotiate motu propio how to reach an agreement for the regeneration of several ideas on the matter. We should also take notice of the status enjoyed by the CVBM, to observe different ways of managing our decision-making processes within the community, because it is undesirable for anyone to make the same mistakes or for any style to ever repeat itself. In spite of this, there is a lack of interest in these issues by a large part of society, which may have doubts about the repercussion of neighbourhood movements and, therefore, disagrees with the lack of more joint participation that grants us more rights.
    
    Nevertheless, the violation of regulations must be settled as soon as possible, taking the appropriate steps and with current protocols on this matter being applicable.
    
    The following supporting documents are attached: Spanish Law 30/1992, of 26 November, of the Public Administration and General Administrative Procedures; Royal Decree 429/1993, of 26 March, approving the regulations of the Public Administration on the subject of state liability.
    
    I request that this claim for property damage liability be admitted, to which effect the aforementioned documents are attached. Filling out the form requested, it is also attached.