A question on Sitesi law

[stoop]

It looks like our managers have decided that they need extra money to maintain our site this year. No problem with that as we do have a very large pool and flooding problems which do cost a bit.

However they have said that as well as increasing our monthly cost across the whole sitesi that they now want to charge and extra 100 ytl to those owners who rent out their property. Their logic is that this payment is for the extra use of the pool.

Obviously this argument is completely flawed as, for example, we will have used our place for a total of 6 weeks this year with 1 week rented to a close friend at a nominal charge - yet some families stay for 3 - 6 months and won't be expected to pay the 100ytl extra.

I know it's only £25 but it's the principal and the thought it might actually create some tension on the site.

My question is : "Is it lawful within Sitesi law?"

[nichola]

I don't know the answer to your question but surely the pool has to be maintained throughout the season regardless of who is there. You can't neglect the upkeep of the pool because no one is using it for a couple of weeks.

How is that an extra cost?

[stoop]

I get your point Nichola but what they are implying is that because the pool is so expensive to run that those people who rent their properties out should pay a little more than those who don't.

My argument is that this does not mean they use the pool more or even use the site more (as in our case - 6 weeks max this year compared to one neighbour who never rents out but stays 3 or 4 months).

Not sure what the answer is other than everyone sharing the costs which is what I thought we signed up to 11 years ago.

[JohnF]

I stand to be corrected as this is just my interpretation of the condominium law:

I would have thought that the pool falls into the category of "common premises", and as such Article 16 would apply:

ARTICLE 16. – Condominium owners become owners of all the common premises of the main property, in proportion to their building plot share, according to the provisions ruling coownership.

Condominium owners have the right to use the common premises. The extent of this right in such places as common coal cellars, garage, terrace, laundry and drying rooms shall be proportionate to the building plot share, subject to anything contrary in the agreement.

The running costs of the "common premises" are also laid out:

ARTICLE 20.-  Each of the condominium owners are liable to participate the followings unless otherwise is agreed between themselves:

a) Equally to the expenses of door-keeper, central heating operator, gardener and watchman and the advances to be collected for them;
b) The insurance premiums of the main property and the maintenance, protection, amplification and repair expenses of all common premises, in other expenses such as the salary of the manager and in the operating expenses of the common installations and the advance payment for expenses, in proportion to its share of the building plot (1).
c) Condominium owners may not refrain from paying his share of expenses and advance payments by desisting from his right to use the common premises or installations or that he does not need to benefit from the same because of the situation of his independent division.

Pretty much says everyone has to pay their share for the running and upkeep of "common premises", with no distinction made between those who live their all year round or rent their property out.  The only way they could make it legal is if its entered into the Management Plan, and that would require the usual majority to agree.

This is all on the basis that the pool is classified as "common premises".  We don't have one on our sitesi so never really thought about it.

But, as usual I will say, don't believe everything you read on the internet and take advice from a professional.

JF

[stoop]

Thanks John. We are probably going to have a letter translated expressing our views on this. As I said above its not the money but the principal and I believe we should all share the cost of whatever the site needs to spend to make it a safe and nice environment to stay.

[JohnF]

Tell them to stick it.  I suspect its unenforceable anyway.

JF

[nichola]

My guess what with the prices of everything going up they are just looking for ways of making up the difference! Unless one of the other owners is complaining, it only takes one to stir the pot.

You've been there a long time and this hasn't been an issue before!

[mary62]

Looks like they are trying it on Stoop. I know prices go up every year, but surely this is reflected in their annual bill review?

[stoop]

Well we have a new manager and whilst he seems very pro-active it also seems he excerts some power over the comittee.

I think we will draft the letter to say we think this is unfair and that by conduminium law the costs should be shared equally.

I have no issue with the fees going up as we only pay 75 ytl at the moment. It's going up to 100ytl which is still cheap but it's these little extra payments that are the issue.

I'll see what happens after the letter has gone in but we won't be paying without a fight   

[JohnF]

I think we will draft the letter to say we think this is unfair and that by conduminium law the costs should be shared equally.

A better approach might be to ask "where in the management plan is there provision for this surcharge?".

JF