The company Lude Gestiones y Servicios S.L. has denounced "the paradox" that the technicians of the Arrecife City Council question today "the design of some facilities that in their day favorably reported". In this sense, it has referred to the municipal swimming pool and the Argana pavilion, which were closed by order of the Arrecife City Council last Friday. "Upon verifying the reception of the works, they did not detect any anomaly, decreeing the suitability of the facilities with that sectorial regulation," he stated.
Lude has also assured that it has "the authorizations and enabling titles" to carry out the sports activity, "singularly the sanitary ones." "The only circumstances that would determine the closure of the facilities are exclusively limited to some alleged errors in the primitive construction projects, in the sense that, according to the City Council, they do not comply with the urban sector regulation," they have denounced from the company.
Lude has insisted that its contract consists of the indirect management of a public service that "does not include the assumption and/or execution of any work prior to the exploitation." "In fact, in the preparatory actions for the bidding, there is no document that reflects the obligation to execute any work prior to the exploitation of the service, much less that dimension such eventual works or express their amount," he assured.
In this same sense, he pointed out that "additionally, the Pliego itself presumed the imminent start in the exploitation of the service after the award, assuming that both the Puerto del Arrecife Municipal Sports Park and the Arrecife Municipal Sports Palace had the corresponding activity or installation licenses by expressing their suitability".
"It cannot be seriously pretended that it is the concessionaire who, after being awarded the contract, faces for the first time an eventual illegality of the facilities for not adapting the work projected and executed by the City Council with the urban regulations, additionally bearing costs and actions not contemplated in the specifications or in the announcement of the bidding," the company denounced.
This claim of the City Council, according to Lude, "not only fights with essential principles of contracting such as transparency, it is also improper and alien to the tendered activity and, therefore, remains outside the sphere of the risk and venture of the concessionaire, limited to the exploitation of said activity based on the technical and economic variables defined in the specifications and in its proposal".
"Silenced" circumstances
The company that manages these two sports infrastructures of Arrecife has insisted that the City Council "cannot pretend to transfer its responsibility to a concessionaire in good faith, who has been hidden the absence of an installation license for the Puerto del Arrecife Municipal Sports Park and the Arrecife Municipal Sports Palace, as well as the alleged obligation to assume its processing and the costs derived from it." Lude has assured that these circumstances were "silenced at the time of the bidding".
Lude has insisted that the City Council cannot condition either, "as it does through the sanctioning file, the payment of the correction works of its own projects to the closure or closure of the facilities, suggesting before the public opinion breaches of Lude that do not exist nor are we willing to accept." "The Arrecife City Council itself assumed from the beginning as its own the obligation to process the activity or installation license and, therefore, to verify the adequacy of the work projected and executed to the urban sector regulations," he stated.
Lude has pointed out that the City Council officially requested the activity license for these facilities and, therefore, does not understand that now the Consistory, "abstracting from its initial behavior", maintains that the processing of said permit corresponds to the concessionaire company. For Lude, this implies a "violation of the doctrine of one's own acts as an expression of the elementary principles of good faith and protection of legitimate trust that must preside over any contractual relationship".
Likewise, he recalled that on December 3, 2012 he formally requested the City Council, "within the contract, the initiation of a contradictory file exposing the above and asking, after a report from the Canary Islands Advisory Council, to clarify the situation in relation to the installation license, which according to what was seen is incumbent on the City Council". "Needless to say that the Arrecife City Council, ignoring such writing, has been resisting initiating such file, with the consequent defenselessness of the concessionaire entity," he denounced.
For all this, Lude has insisted that "reserves the appropriate legal actions, including criminal ones, in order to purify the corresponding responsibilities and to repeat any expenses incurred by reason of the granting of a license whose processing and costs should and must bear in effect the granting body, that is, the Arrecife City Council".