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.
Comments