Extraordinary owners meeting with remote voting: LPH 2026 requirements

Remote voting at owners meetings has established itself as a key tool for property managers. Although Spain’s Horizontal Property Act — LPH (Spain’s Horizontal Property Act) — does not expressly regulate the full conduct of online meetings, legal practice accepts the format when certain safeguards are met. It is therefore important to know exactly what is permitted and what is not, especially in extraordinary owners meetings where urgency creates pressure.

This article sets out the practical requirements for remote voting at owners meetings, in line with the current framework of the consolidated LPH (last update published in the BOE on 24 July 2025) and recent case law. You will see when it is valid, how to make the minutes watertight, and which formal errors can invalidate important resolutions.

Remote voting at owners meetings: the current legal framework

The LPH does not contain specific rules on holding owners meetings entirely in remote format. However, this does not mean they are prohibited. On the contrary, case law and notarial practice have long accepted them provided they respect the basic principles of the Act: owner identification, effective deliberation, traceable voting, and valid minutes.

Two points that are often confused deserve clarification:

• LO 1/2025, of 2 January, on measures relating to the efficiency of the Public Justice Service, in force since 3 April 2025, amended the LPH through its fourth final provision, but only in relation to art. 17.12: it reduced the majority required to restrict, condition or prohibit tourist-use dwellings (VUT) from unanimity to three-fifths of owners and ownership quotas. LO 1/2025 does not regulate remote meetings.
• An LPH reform is currently in parliamentary proceedings (linked to the Omnibus Royal Decree-Law of December 2024 and the bill on procedural efficiency) that does intend to expressly regulate hybrid meetings, fully remote meetings, resolutions without a meeting by postal or electronic vote, the digital minutes book and the immediate enforceability of resolutions. At the time of publication of this article, that reform is not yet in force.

Until that reform is published in the BOE, remote meetings rest on the doctrinal interpretation of the current art. 16 LPH, which does not prohibit them, and on analogy with corporate meetings. Consequently, the property manager must exercise extreme formal care: the risk of challenge is real if the technical and procedural safeguards are not robust.

What the LPH says about the meeting notice

Art. 16 LPH governs meeting notices. Three key points that affect the remote format are worth bearing in mind:

• For the annual ordinary meeting, the minimum notice period is six days in advance, pursuant to art. 16.3 LPH. The Act does not distinguish between working days and public holidays.
• For extraordinary owners meetings, the LPH requires notice with as much advance as possible so that it may come to the attention of all interested parties, without specifying a fixed number of days. Doctrine recommends at least 3 days except in cases of extreme documented urgency.
• The notice must include the agenda, the venue, the date and time of the first and, where applicable, second call, and the list of owners in arrears deprived of voting rights (art. 16.2 LPH read together with art. 15.2 LPH).

A remote meeting notice must therefore comply with these requirements and, in addition, clearly specify the digital medium to be used, the access instructions, and the owner identification procedure.

Extraordinary owners meeting with remote voting: practical requirements

Extraordinary meetings are usually convened for urgent matters — for example, an unforeseen special assessment, a serious loss, or a decision on VUT. In these cases, the remote format saves time and costs. However, urgency does not exempt compliance with formal requirements, nor does it relax the required majorities: if a decision requires three-fifths in person, it still requires three-fifths online.

Unambiguous identification of the owner

The first requirement is the reliable identification of the attendee. A generic email address is not sufficient. There are three reasonable options, listed in ascending order of assurance:

1. Access via a unique personal link sent to the email address registered in the owners’ book.
2. Access via a link and OTP code sent by SMS to the registered mobile number.
3. Access with a qualified digital certificate or the Cl@ve system, which provides the highest evidentiary guarantee.

The system must also record the exact connection and disconnection time for each owner. This serves to evidence attendance in the event of a challenge.

Video-conference safeguards

The virtual room must allow three basic actions for all attendees. First, to see and hear the other owners without interruption. Second, to speak at any point on the agenda. Third, to vote in an identified and traceable manner. If the tool does not allow any of these three things, it is not suitable for an owners meeting.

It is therefore advisable to use professional platforms that record the session, log votes, and generate a digitally signed activity log. Recordings require prior notification to attendees and a clear legal basis, in accordance with the RGPD and LOPDGDD. In addition, the secretary must retain both the recording and the log for at least five years, in line with the document retention obligations under art. 19.4 LPH.

Vote counting and required majorities

The majorities required by the LPH do not change by virtue of the format. For example:

• An extraordinary meeting voting on restricting, conditioning or prohibiting VUT requires three-fifths of owners and three-fifths of ownership quotas, pursuant to art. 17.12 LPH (as worded by LO 1/2025). The same resolution may increase the common-expense share by up to 20% for the properties concerned, with no retroactive effect.
• A decision on energy-efficiency works backed by a certificate is approved by simple majority, pursuant to art. 17.2 LPH.
• Modification of the title deed or by-laws still requires unanimity, pursuant to art. 17.6 LPH, except for the exceptions expressly provided for in the Act itself.

The system must therefore be able to aggregate votes not only by number of owners but also by participation share. Without that capability, resolutions may be challenged for errors in the count.

How to draft the minutes of a remote meeting

The minutes are the central piece of the process. A technically flawless remote meeting can be invalidated by deficient minutes. It is therefore important to treat them with the same rigour as an in-person meeting.

Minimum content under art. 19.2 LPH

The minutes must record at least the following particulars:

1. Date and place of the meeting. In a remote meeting, the place is the virtual room, with a clear identification of the platform used.
2. Person who convened the meeting, normally the community chair or, failing that, the promoters holding at least 25% of owners or ownership quotas.
3. Whether the meeting is ordinary or extraordinary, and whether it was held at first or second call.
4. Full list of attendees and proxies, with their respective ownership shares.
5. The agenda as published in the notice.
6. Resolutions adopted, with votes for and against and the ownership shares each represents.

Closing and enforceability

Art. 19.3 LPH provides that the minutes must be closed with the signatures of the community chair and the secretary at the end of the meeting or within the following ten calendar days, and that from their closure the resolutions shall be enforceable, unless the Act provides otherwise.

Two points deserve clarification:

• The majority case law of the Provincial Courts of Appeal (among others, AP Madrid of 17 December 2018, AP A Coruña of 16 December 2018, AP Ourense of 22 November 2013) holds that resolutions are enforceable from the time they are adopted, not from the closure of the minutes, and that the absence of the chair’s or secretary’s signature does not prevent their enforceability if the decision adopted by majority is evidenced.
• The LPH reform currently in parliamentary proceedings provides for removing the final clause of art. 19.3 and moving enforceability to the moment of adoption of the resolution (proposed new art. 17.9). When that reform comes into force, this judicial criterion will become express statutory law.

In any event, in a remote meeting it is advisable for both the community chair and the secretary to sign the minutes with a qualified digital certificate. This guarantees the authenticity and integrity of the document and provides a certain date, which drastically reduces the risk of dispute.

Common errors that invalidate the meeting

The challenge of resolutions follows the rules of art. 18 LPH. Standing is held by owners who voted against, those who were absent, and those who were wrongfully deprived of a vote. The most recent doctrine and case law also recognise standing for the abstainer who formally reserves their position. Furthermore, the challenger must be up to date with payments or must have deposited or judicially challenged the debt. Even so, avoiding formal errors is always preferable to defending the meeting in court.

Five typical failures in remote meetings

1. Failing to record attendance with a timestamp. Without a connection log, it is impossible to evidence who was present at each agenda item.
2. Confusing synchronous remote voting with delegated voting by post. These are distinct and non-interchangeable instruments. The current LPH only allows representation by a written document signed by the owner (art. 15.1).
3. Omitting information about the recording. The RGPD requires prior notification to attendees and, if the recording is retained, a clear legal basis and a defined retention period.
4. Failing to aggregate the count by ownership shares. Resolutions under art. 17 LPH require majorities based on shares, not solely on a head count.
5. Signing the minutes only with a scanned handwritten signature. A qualified digital signature (eIDAS) is more secure and avoids disputes about the certain date and the integrity of the document.

Model meeting notice with remote voting

A well-drafted notice drastically reduces the risk of a challenge. It is therefore advisable to use a template that includes all required elements. Below is an outline of the points that must not be omitted:

1. Identification of the community and of the person issuing the notice.
2. Date, time of first call and, where applicable, second call.
3. Format: in-person, remote or hybrid. If remote or hybrid, the platform to be used and the access link.
4. Owner identification procedure — for example, a personal link and OTP code.
5. Detailed agenda, without generic items such as «any other business» that conceal substantive decisions.
6. List of owners deprived of voting rights due to arrears (art. 15.2 LPH).
7. Information on the recording of the session and the retention period, in accordance with the RGPD.
8. Deadline and method for an owner to request the inclusion of an item on the agenda (art. 16.2 LPH).

If your practice manages many communities, automating this workflow saves hours every month. A platform like FixrOS enables you to generate the notice, distribute it through secure channels, and register all logs without manual effort.

Hybrid meetings: in-person and remote simultaneously

The hybrid format combines owners attending in person in a physical room with owners connected by video conference. It is probably the most widely used format in practice, as it allows owners who live elsewhere or have difficulty attending to be included.

However, it requires additional care. The platform must ensure that those connected can hear and see with the same quality as those in the room. It is therefore necessary to invest in a good ambient microphone and a wide-angle camera. The moderator must also monitor the room chat so as not to miss contributions. If a remote participant loses audio or video during a vote, it is advisable to reopen the item when they reconnect or to record their exclusion expressly in the minutes.

In these cases, the minutes must clearly distinguish who attended in person and who attended remotely. They must also state whether there were connection problems and, if so, during which agenda item they occurred.

Frequently asked questions

Is it legal to hold an owners meeting fully remotely?

The LPH neither prohibits nor expressly regulates it. The majority legal interpretation accepts it when the principles of identification, deliberation, traceable voting and valid minutes are respected. It is therefore legal in practice, but requires reinforced technical and formal safeguards. The LPH reform currently in parliamentary proceedings intends to regulate it expressly; once published in the BOE, legal certainty will be greater.

What happens if an owner loses internet connection during the meeting?

They are treated as absent from that point. Their subsequent votes are not counted. For resolutions that require notification to absent owners (art. 17.8 LPH, for qualified majorities such as those for works or common services), the owner may express their disagreement within thirty calendar days of receiving the minutes; if they do not, their vote is treated as favourable — the so-called deemed vote. For resolutions already adopted by simple majority, that subsequent count does not apply.

Can I record the meeting without the attendees’ consent?

No. The RGPD requires prior notification and a legal basis for recording. The standard approach is to inform attendees in the notice, repeat the reminder at the start of the session, and limit retention to the period necessary. The legal basis is usually the performance of the community’s obligations as the data controller.

Which video-conference tool is most appropriate?

Any platform that provides identification, traceable voting, and an attendance record. Professional platforms designed for communities include these modules natively. Generic platforms require additional manual procedures and increase the risk of a challenge.

Can owners in arrears vote remotely?

No. Owners in arrears who have not challenged or deposited the debt are deprived of voting rights, pursuant to art. 15.2 LPH. They may attend, speak, and appear in the minutes, but their vote does not count towards the required majorities.

Is a vote cast via chat or email during the meeting valid?

Only if the notice expressly provided for it as a synchronous remote voting method. If it was not provided for, that vote is treated as not cast. It is therefore advisable to establish a single identified voting channel and to publish it in the notice.

Conclusion: formal rigour above convenience

Remote voting at owners meetings is a valuable tool, but it is not a shortcut. The majorities required by the LPH are not relaxed simply because a digital channel is used. It is therefore important to draft the notice carefully, guarantee identification, control the recording, and close the minutes with a qualified digital signature within the required timeframe.

If your practice convenes several extraordinary meetings a year, a specialist tool reduces legal risk and frees up hours for higher-value tasks. To complement this article, we also recommend reading our guide on convening online meetings and our legal template for minutes.