Why pay for what I don't use?
Why pay for what I don't use?
In my PPE, there's talk of redoing the laundry room and replacing the washing machine and tumble dryer. I don't use this room at all, as I have a washing machine in my flat. What's more, I've given up my laundry day to one of my neighbours who has a large family. So should I contribute to the cost of refurbishing the laundry room? I don't think that would be fair compared with other owners who benefit directly from these facilities.
M, Nyon
First of all, you need to refer to your condominium regulations to see what, if anything, they say about the sharing of such costs between condominium owners, bearing in mind that the laundry room is typically considered to be a common area in a condominium.
In principle, the costs of work on common areas are borne by all co-owners in proportion to their shares in the PPE (in other words, according to the so-called thousandths). However, the PPE regulations may provide for a different allocation key, which is why you should read them first.
A co-owner who is opposed to a renovation project involving a common area cannot use the fact that he voted against it at the general meeting as a reason for refusing to pay his share. However, in certain situations, this co-owner may object to his share of the costs of renovating a part of the PPE that he does not use.
According to article 647d of the Swiss Civil Code (CC), when modifications would entail expenses for a co-owner that cannot be imposed on him, in particular because they are disproportionate to the value of his share, they may be carried out without his consent only if the other co-owners assume his share of the costs, insofar as it exceeds the amount that can be requested of him.
The legislator has also stipulated that when certain parts of the building, certain works or installations are of little or no use to certain co-owners, this must be taken into account in the apportionment of costs (art. 712h CC).
In practice, however, judges apply these standards with great restraint. In order to be released from the obligation to contribute to common costs, it is really necessary to be able to demonstrate a total lack of usefulness, which in principle should not depend on the will or the situation of the co-owner who opposes the assumption of his share of the costs.
