€93,251: In cheques and post-dated promissory notes (per debtor list)
€1,961,153: Total debt of defaulting owners as of 31-12-2025
What the official debtor list says
The debtor list as of 31 December 2025, included in the convocation for the 7 March General Meeting, records a total of €93,251.17 in cheques and post-dated promissory notes. This appears as a separate category at the end of the list — meaning the administration itself distinguishes these amounts from money actually collected.
What does this mean? That nearly one hundred thousand euros of community fees were not paid by transfer or direct debit, but with payment documents that may or may not have been honoured.
At the Extraordinary General Meeting in January 2026, the representative of Michaday S.L.U., Mr William Enrique, stated he had been informed of his debt through promissory notes and disagreed, claiming the debt was already settled according to his own calculations. If the debtor and the administration can't even agree on the figures, what level of control exists?
Agenda item 5: ban promissory notes
The convocation for the Ordinary General Meeting on 7 March 2026 includes as Item 5 the "standardisation of payment methods, avoiding the use of cheques, talones or promissory notes". It cites Article 20 of the Statutes, which stipulates that fees shall be paid monthly and that all owners must provide a bank account for direct debit.
In other words: the community itself acknowledges that the current system does not work. That accepting promissory notes has been a problem. And that they need a formal vote to stop doing it.
Why were promissory notes accepted for years?
A property community is not a supplier negotiating payment terms. Fees are fixed obligations, approved at general meetings. The normal mechanism is direct debit. If an owner submits a promissory note instead of paying, the administration has a duty to enforce collection.
Accepting promissory notes for years means accepting that some owners pay "when they feel like it" or "if they feel like it". It means creating a grey area where nobody knows exactly how much has actually been collected. It means €93,251 sits in limbo between "paid" and "not paid".
Unanswered questions
1. How many of these promissory notes were actually cashed?
2. How many were returned by the bank?
3. Which owners paid with promissory notes, and why was it allowed?
4. Who authorised accepting promissory notes instead of requiring direct debit?
5. Were surcharges applied for bounced promissory notes?
Demand clarity before you vote
Item 5 of the convocation asks for your vote to ban promissory notes going forward. But before voting on the future, you deserve to know what happened in the past. How much money was lost? Who was responsible? Without that information, banning promissory notes is closing the stable door after the horse has bolted.