Common sections in obsolete regulations

For the subdivision deed of a association of owners (VvE), one of the model regulations. It contains a set of standard rules for the management and use of the apartment complex. The model regulations are used as the basis for the deed of division of the association. Among other things, the division deed determines what is common and private within the VvE. This is important in terms of who is responsible for maintenance and its costs.

Old model regulations unclear on common matters

Model regulations are revised once in a while. Often, outdated regulations only briefly and generally state what belongs to the common parts. Or it is not mentioned at all and it is simply assumed that certain parts are common. That is food for discussion. AND for lawsuits. Conner Canters is an attorney at Lexys Attorneys at Law and specialized in VvE law. Using an Amsterdam court ruling, he explains how to deal with it.

Doubt provision a ‘dead letter’

Before I get to the point, a quick note about the so-called doubt provision. It is often seen as a solution to the situation I discuss in this blog. However, for those doubt clause in model regulations That one is a dead letter. So it does not appear in model regulations these days either.

Dispute in VvE about painting window frames

In a May 28, 2024 Amsterdam court ruling (ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2024:2983) was ruled on a dispute within the VvE, in which a set of 1964 regulations applied. The applicant applied to the court for a replacement authorisation to have the doors and window frames on the outside of its loggia (an indoor outdoor space) repaired at the expense of the CoE. The VvE argued that the owners themselves were responsible for maintaining and repairing the exterior window frames. In fact, those window frames were not explicitly named as common items.

Court: all in common unless private

The premise is that the description in the division regulations determines what belongs to the common parts and objects of the building. However, the subdivision regulations of the CoE in question only briefly and generally defined what belongs to them:

“Common parts: the parts of the building, which are not intended for separate use.”

In short, all (sub)parts of the building not for private use are common.

Discussion because painting and window frames were not explicitly named

However, another provision explicitly mentioned a number of parts whose maintenance was common, such as the roof and the elevator. According to the VvE, this meant that anything not mentioned there was not common. However, the subdistrict court did not agree. It followed from that provision that the enumeration was not exhaustive. 

Court's ruling on common matters in VvE

The subdistrict court ruled that the exterior of the doors and window frames belong to the common parts of the building. To this end, the Subdistrict Court considered that it is relevant to distinguish between:

1. What belongs to the private parts of an apartment right and
2. which - in short - must be maintained in common.

Subdistrict court considers more recent model regulations in its ruling

Interestingly, the Subdistrict Court also pays attention to the newer Model Regulations. For example, the 2006 Model Regulations (Article 17 paragraph 1 under d) and the 2017 Model Regulations (Article 11 paragraph 1 under d) explicitly state that the window frames belong to the common parts. This circumstance also played into the assessment of the dispute:

“In later drafted so-called Model Regulations - precisely to avoid disagreement on the interpretation of various terms used - various terms are defined more precisely and more extensively, such as with regard to the common parts. In the latest Model Regulations (2017) it is stipulated in Article 11 paragraph 1 under d that ‘the window frames (including windows and the glass contained therein) as well as door frames with the doors (including sliding doors) and thresholds located in the facades (whether or not adjacent to balconies or terraces) (...) as well as the associated (standard) hinges and locks’ shall be at the expense of the joint owners (emphasis of the Subdistrict Court).”

Peel of the building is common in the CoE

Further, the district judge rightly considered:

“This also makes sense because the window frames and door frames with the doors located in the external walls are among the necessary and essential parts of the (frame of the building). After all, they form the partition between inside and outside and are therefore part of what is often called “the shell of the building.” That which protects the building from outside weather and wind influences. In this sense, they are of interest to all owners of the building and therefore qualify as common parts.”

Doors and window frames are common in the CoE

It was concluded that the exterior doors and window frames belong to the common parts. For this reason, the responsibility and costs of maintenance fall to the joint owners. Is there division within your VvE about the interpretation of a provision in a division deed? Feel free to contact on.