Rocío Monasterio's company condemned for violating the law in a work of a 'loft' by Arturo Valls

Vox clarifies that the company carried out consulting work and that it was the client who made their own decisions

The Provincial Court of Madrid has condemned the company of Rocío Monasterio to carry out the repair and reform works at its expense to adapt to urban legality the illegal work that it carried out in a 'loft' of the presenter Arturo Valls in the Lavapiés neighborhood.

This is stated in a sentence, to which Europa Press had access, in which the Chamber dismissed the appeal filed by Rocío Monasterio y Asociados S.L. against the resolution issued, in July 2021 and which is now confirmed.

In the first instance judgment, the judge of First Instance number 59 of Madrid declared the contractual breach of the consultancy contract signed by Pólvora Films S.L. with the defendant Rocío Monasterio y Asociados S.L. and Diseño de Ambientes para el Confort S.L.

In November 2019, the popular presenter sued the leader of Vox in Madrid for her work as an architect when she converted a premises on Rodas de Lavapiés street into an unlicensed home in 2005.

The obligation to compensate damages and losses was then declared and the defendants were ordered to pay 3,838.49 euros corresponding to the amount of the administrative urban penalty imposed and 4,205 euros (VAT included) corresponding to the amount of demolition costs.

In the same way, they were jointly and severally sentenced, to carry out at their own expense, all repair, reform, replacement, adaptation and adaptation works, even prior demolition of whatever was necessary, to adapt the result of the litigious work within the urban legality. within a period of three months.

TEST FAILED

In the appeal, Monasterio invoked the violation of article 217 of the Civil Procedure Law, considering that the norms of the burden of proof had been altered and raised an error in the evidentiary assessment.

The leader of Vox in Madrid based the challenge on the fact that there had been no breach of the signed contract, being aware that "the works had been carried out without a license and said circumstance having been assumed."

It stated that "no complaint or claim was made for fifteen years regarding the services provided and the change of use from premises to housing was not a fundamental object of the contract and the plaintiff opposed the demolition of the slab that had been built illegally before of the acquisition of the premises due to the fact that it lost a large part of the buildability, and the work was received in May 2006 without any objection".

The magistrates state that "the work has been carried out without having the corresponding municipal permits and without the change of use from premises to housing", for which reason they conclude that there has been "a breach of their contractual obligations".

The Chamber pronounces on the allegation made by the appellant regarding the agreed demolition and imposed sanction does not have its origin in its actions but in "the illegal works previously carried out".

In this regard, it indicates that according to the documents provided "it cannot be considered that said demolition order derived from the works carried out prior to the acquisition by the plaintiff of the premises, but rather from the works carried out by the appellant and therefore, must The reasoning made in this regard in the judgment under appeal must be maintained".

CONSULTING WORK

In a statement, Vox has clarified that the ruling only condemns the payment of "simple" administrative fees, while denying the client of 'Rocío Monasterio y Asociados' (RMA) the payment of up to 250,000 euros that he demanded.

Likewise, it states that in said project RMA carried out consultancy work in which it informed its client of "everything he needed to legalize his work." "It was the client who, after being informed, made his own decisions," he points out.