Dn condominiums, the question of the elimination of the post of the janitor often gives rise to friction between elderly occupants, which is due to the permanent presence of a person in the building, considering that it contributes to the security of the premises, and newcomers, often younger, who prefer to do without to save money.
The Boutin Lawmobilization for housing and the fight against exclusion, adopted on March 25, 2009, then the ALUR law (for access to housing and renovated urban planning)adopted on March 24, 2014, clarified the voting rules, previously governed by case law.
They impose a “qualified” majority (representing at least two-thirds of the votes) to remove the post of concierge, provided that this removal does not affect either the standing of the building – the “destination” in legal terms – or ” the terms of enjoyment of the private portions”. Otherwise, unanimity is always required, as the following case reminds us.
On November 29, 2016, the general meeting of a condominium located in Paris, place Adolphe-Max, in 9e borough, votes to abolish the post of the guard – the latter having to retire –, by a majority two-thirds voices. To compensate for the loss of this position, it decides to hire a part-time employee, category A, and cancels a previous resolution which provided for the renovation of the dressing room.
Mme X, co-owner (non-occupant), who voted against these two resolutions, immediately summons the syndicate of co-owners, as well as its trustee, the company Foncia Laporte, to have them canceled. She asserts that the one concerning the abolition of the post should have been adopted unanimously.
Indeed, argues his lawyer, the co-ownership regulations, dated November 4, 1957, provide that “the common services of the building will be provided by a concierge”which will “the allocations of the normal category defined by the salary agreement of March 30, 1951 and will receive the remuneration provided for by said agreement”.
“Hardstone”
However, when the existence of a caretaker is thus provided for by the co-ownership regulations, the abolition of his post requires unanimity, unless the alternative solutions put in place offer advantages.s “strictly equivalent”.
Mme X maintains that this is not the case: the babysitter provided home delivery of mail and parcels – no need to go down to the box to get her letters, or to go to the post office to collect her parcels. As she kept a duplicate of the keys, she could open the door to the workers who had to do some work. Since she was staying there, she could monitor suspicious comings and goings.
You have 38.01% of this article left to read. The following is for subscribers only.