It depends on the province, and the safe assumption anywhere in Spain is yes. In Alicante, Valencia and Málaga the Provincial Court already requires it: before going to court over unpaid community fees, you must try to negotiate with the owner and be able to prove it. Five steps: approve the debt at an owners' meeting, notify it as the law requires, send an invitation to negotiate that leaves a record, wait thirty days, then file with that proof.
Work out your deadlines: with the date of receipt, our MASC deadline calculator tells you when the attempt ends and the last day to file.
Below you will find each step, the mistakes that have already sunk claims, and a template letter.
Do you need a MASC to claim community fees? It depends where you are
Since 3 April 2025, Organic Law 1/2025 has required a prior attempt at an "appropriate means of dispute resolution" (medio adecuado de solución de controversias, MASC) before you sue. For a fees claim, that is the invitation to negotiate in step 3 below.
Article 5 expressly excludes bills of exchange claims (juicio cambiario) and the European payment order. It does not exclude the domestic payment order procedure (proceso monitorio), the simplified court route for recovering a debt. And nothing excludes the monitorio under the Horizontal Property Act (Ley de Propiedad Horizontal, LPH), the version a community of owners (comunidad de propietarios) uses to claim unpaid fees.
Whether the community monitorio needs a MASC is disputed, and the Supreme Court (Tribunal Supremo) has not settled it yet. In the meantime, each Provincial Court (Audiencia Provincial, the appeal court for each province) has set its own criterion:
| Provincial Court | Does it require a MASC for a fees monitorio? |
|---|---|
| Alicante, Section 5 (orders from April to October 2026) | Yes. A "mero requerimiento unilateral de pago" (a mere unilateral demand for payment) is not enough, and neither is the notice board |
| Valencia (unified criteria, June 2026) | Yes, although it is enough for the resolution approving the debt to show the meeting's willingness to reach an agreement |
| Málaga, Section 6 (order 260/2025, ROJ AAP MA 535/2025) | Yes |
| Asturias (November 2025) | No: the prior demand required by the LPH is enough |
| Pontevedra (agreement of January 2026) | No, for the special monitorio under article 21 LPH |
If you manage communities in the Valencian Community (Comunitat Valenciana), or in a province whose court has not yet set a criterion, work as if the requirement applied. The cost of doing it is a letter. The cost of not doing it is having your claim thrown out. The Alicante courts of first instance consider a missing MASC "insubsanable" (impossible to put right afterwards).
Step 1: approve the debt statement at an owners' meeting
The monitorio in the Horizontal Property Act (article 21) starts from a certificate of the owners' meeting (junta de propietarios) resolution approving the statement of the debt (liquidación). The secretary signs it, with the president's approval (visto bueno).
A practical tip that comes from the Valencia criterion: in that same resolution, record that the meeting wants to reach a payment agreement with the owner and that one will be offered before any claim. In Valencia, that alone satisfies the MASC. Alicante has not said the same, so do not stop there. But it costs nothing.
Step 2: notify the debt as the LPH requires
Article 21 requires a document proving "haberse notificado al deudor" (that the debtor has been notified). The notice goes to the address in Spain the owner gave the community or, if they gave none, to their flat or premises in the building (article 9.1.h). If it cannot be delivered, the law allows it to be posted on the community notice board, or in a visible place, for at least three calendar days.
Careful: this is the LPH notification. It is not the MASC. The Alicante Provincial Court has said that a notice board posting "no satisface las exigencias del artículo 5 de la LO 1/2025" (does not meet the requirements of article 5 of LO 1/2025). They are two different things, and you should do both.
Step 3: send an invitation to negotiate that leaves a record
This is the step Organic Law 1/2025 added, and the one that needs the most care. There are two keys.
The content has to be a negotiation. Article 7.1 asks for a request "en la que se defina adecuadamente el objeto de la negociación" (that properly defines the subject of the negotiation). And the Alicante Provincial Court has been clear: "La finalidad del MASC no se satisface con un mero requerimiento unilateral de pago" (The purpose of the MASC is not met by a mere unilateral demand for payment). Offer something concrete: instalments, a deadline, a date to talk.
The sending has to leave proof. Article 10.2 requires a document showing that the owner received the invitation, on what date, and that they could access its full content. A burofax (a certified postal communication with proof of content and delivery) meets this if it is delivered. So does a certified email, if it goes to an address the owner uses with the community. The Alicante courts of first instance accept email agreed as the usual channel, or used for at least three exchanges in the previous six months. We explain this in detail in MASC by certified email.
In practice, the most solid approach is to use the channel the owner already uses with the community and, if in doubt, two channels at once.
Step 4: wait thirty calendar days
The attempt counts as made and failed if thirty calendar days pass from the owner's receipt of the invitation with no meeting and no written reply (article 10.4 of LO 1/2025). If they reply and you negotiate, the deadlines change: thirty days from a concrete proposal, or three months from the first meeting.
From that point you have one year to file your claim (article 7.3). Note down the date of receipt shown on the proof of delivery. That is the date that counts, not the date you sent it.
Step 5: file the monitorio with proof of the attempt
The claim goes in with the certificate of the debt statement, the LPH notification and the document proving the attempt to negotiate (art. 264.4 of the Civil Procedure Act, Ley de Enjuiciamiento Civil, LEC). If there is genuinely no way to locate the owner, the law allows a formal signed statement (declaración responsable) explaining so. The claim must also describe the negotiation you attempted (article 399.3 LEC).
Template: invitation to negotiate
Adapt it to each case and review it with the community's lawyer. What matters is that it defines the debt, proposes something and sets a deadline. The Spanish version of this article has the same template in Spanish.
Subject: Invitation to negotiate payment of outstanding fees. Community of Owners [name]
Dear [owner's name],
As the owner of [flat or premises] in the Community of Owners [name], we inform you that, according to the debt statement approved at the owners' meeting of [date], you owe the community €[amount], corresponding to [fees and period].
Before starting any court claim, and in accordance with Organic Law 1/2025, the community invites you to negotiate a solution. We propose [for example: paying the debt in [number] monthly instalments of €[amount] starting on [date]], and we are open to considering any proposal you make.
You can reply to this email or call [phone] before [date: thirty calendar days from receipt]. If we have not received a reply by then, we will understand that you do not wish to negotiate, and the community may take whatever action is available to it.
Yours sincerely,
[Name], administrator of the Community of Owners [name]
Mistakes that have already sunk claims
- Notice board only. It works as the LPH's fallback notification, but the Alicante Provincial Court does not accept it as an attempt to negotiate.
- A demand with no proposal. "Pay by such and such a date" is not negotiating. Offer a plan or a conversation.
- A burofax to an address that is not the designated one. If it comes back as "desconocido" (unknown) or "dirección incorrecta" (wrong address), it usually does not work, unless you prove it was the address the owner gave the community. We look at this in Burofax refused or not collected.
- Email to an address nobody uses. If the owner has never used that address with the community, it is easy to challenge.
- Not keeping the proof of delivery. Without the document proving receipt, date and content, the attempt does not exist as far as the court is concerned.
Sources
- Organic Law 1/2025 (Ley Orgánica 1/2025), arts. 5, 7 and 10.
- Law 49/1960, on Horizontal Property (Ley de Propiedad Horizontal), arts. 9 and 21.
- Civil Procedure Act (Ley de Enjuiciamiento Civil), arts. 264 and 399.
- Alicante Provincial Court, Section 5: order 254/2026, order 322/2026 and order 333/2026.
- Unified civil criteria of the Valencia Provincial Court, 15 June 2026.
- Criteria of the Alicante courts of first instance.
- Asturias Provincial Court, 19 November 2025 and Pontevedra Provincial Court, 23 January 2026.
This article explains the law and published court criteria as of the update date. It is not a substitute for advice from a lawyer on a specific case.